[HN Gopher] How to raise a child with taste in eighteenth-centur...
___________________________________________________________________
How to raise a child with taste in eighteenth-century Britain
Author : apollinaire
Score : 70 points
Date : 2023-09-12 06:05 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.laphamsquarterly.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.laphamsquarterly.org)
| acolderentity wrote:
| This sounds like a bad anime title
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| An anime title, anyways.
| fsckboy wrote:
| _bigot (noun) : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly
| devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices_
|
| The notion that bigot is primarily synonymous with "racist" is a
| modern change; traditionally it was just concerned with
| intolerance of conflicting ideas. I think it was over the
| political debate about segregation that the idea bigotry
| transferred to racial attitudes.
|
| _(obsolete) One who is overly pious in matters of religion,
| often hypocritically or else superstitiously so._
|
| the eighteenth century probably dates back to the more obsolete
| sense of the word
|
| _1820 Charles Robert Maturin "Donna Clara was a woman of a cold
| and grave temper, with all the solemnity of a Spaniard, and all
| the austerity of a bigot."_
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| > The notion that bigot is primarily synonymous with "racist"
| is a modern change
|
| Not to me. Bigot is a wider term that encompasses racism, but
| isn't just about it.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Frame challenge, I wouldn't say it's common to consider bigot
| synonymous or nearly synonymous with racist, or at least that
| has never been my experience. What makes you feel like this is
| the case?
| OJFord wrote:
| I agree: 'racist bigot', 'racial bigotry' might be common
| uses, but also clearly show it's not specifically about
| racism on its own.
|
| I couldn't have managed a definition, but on its own I'd take
| it to mean something like the supposedly 'obsolete' meaning
| above.
| dmurray wrote:
| Racist might be wrong but it's definitely now used for people
| who are intolerant of other _people_ , usually for identity-
| politics reasons.
|
| These days you can be bigoted against black or Muslim or gay
| or transgender people, but not really about Greek statuary or
| rap music or electric cars or PHP, no matter how strong your
| opinions on those.
| leidenfrost wrote:
| I only see it used that way in the US, where everyone is
| obsessed with race
|
| Elsewhere, it's just used in its original meaning
| rsynnott wrote:
| Hrm, in which country? I'm Irish; in modern writing in
| Ireland and the UK, certainly anything from the last 50
| years, it's generally used to mean racists, sexists et
| al. Wasn't aware there was any English-speaking country
| which had held onto the archaic meaning, at least as a
| primary meaning.
|
| (India? Indian English has a few things still in common
| use which are obsolete in UK English).
|
| Example UK usage from 50 years ago: the "Barry bigot"
| doll in S3E5 of Monty Python's Flying Circus (1972; it's
| a wind-up racist doll).
| pluijzer wrote:
| Are your sure this is the case? I see the word used in the
| original meaning all the time.
| [deleted]
| harpooniker wrote:
| Racist is used to describe someone who is intolerant of
| people based on their ethnicity ,skin color, national
| origin, and the like.
| [deleted]
| Waterluvian wrote:
| From my context: I've often heard it used to mean things
| other than racist, but it always carries a very strong,
| intentionally hurtful connotation.
| badcppdev wrote:
| An "intentionally hurtful connotation" or an intentional
| condemnation.
|
| The difference from my point of view is that the intent of
| using the word bigot is not to hurt but instead to judge
| and condemn.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Yeah I hear you. Condemnation is so often realized by
| being hurtful, so I think in my context it's usually
| both.
| rsynnott wrote:
| It's a difference of intent. Quite frankly, when I refer
| to someone as a bigot, I couldn't care less whether they
| find it hurtful or not; I do absolutely intend to condemn
| them, though.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Hmm. I have several times described myself as a "keyboard
| bigot". That is, I have very strong opinions about what is
| and is not a good keyboard, and a very strong dislike of
| bad ones.
|
| I'm questioning whether I should say that now, based on
| your comment. Could you explain a bit more about what you
| mean by "intentionally hurtful"? Specifically,
| intentionally hurtful _of whom_?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm afraid to because I mean specifically in my context
| and I don't want to inadvertently police how you
| communicate. You may not live where I do and the word can
| hold a different connotation as demonstrated by the
| original commenter pointing out that bigot was not
| originally about racism.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Well, did you mean that a bigot is someone who is
| intentionally hurtful? Or did you mean that _calling
| someone_ a bigot is intentionally hurtful?
|
| If you meant the second, then I'm condemning _myself_ for
| being too opinionated, which is probably something I can
| get away with...
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I mean that in my neck of the woods, when people say
| someone is bigoted or is a bigot, it isn't always about
| racism, but it's almost always aggressive.
|
| If I said "oh he's a keyboard bigot" in this context, I
| would be attempting to be insulting and harmful towards
| you.
|
| If you said "oh I'm just a keyboard bigot" it comes off
| as lighter but my context has me tilting my head in
| curiosity. It wouldn't have been a word I'd expect
| someone to call themselves.
|
| I'd sooner expect "keyboardphile" "keyboard zealot"
| "keyboard maniac"
|
| Again, language is weirdly varied like that. I'm not
| suggesting any of this is some universal rule.
| infecto wrote:
| Weird takes down this thread. Personally I have never
| heard/seen bigot being used to describe as defined here. I have
| always heard it used in the context of intolerance to some
| group of people. Would never have guessed it's history.
| thr_math wrote:
| [flagged]
| mtinkerhess wrote:
| Or, you know, language shifts over time
| layer8 wrote:
| > The notion that bigot is primarily synonymous with "racist"
| is a modern change;
|
| And primarily a US-American one, it seems to me. I wasn't aware
| of his change, and the definition marked as "obsolete" above is
| actually what I think of as the word's literal, non-
| metaphorical meaning.
| randunel wrote:
| Forbidden
|
| You don't have permission to access this resource.
|
| Google cache link
| http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps...
| Woshiwuja wrote:
| So the kid likes trash english food?
| vonnik wrote:
| Since this piece is about inculcating a child with taste, I'd
| just like to say that in my own life, learning the basics of an
| analog art form like sketching or piano has been the most
| powerful way to appreciate the effects that the art can create,
| the power and potential and degrees of freedom. The gloss on
| Maria Edgeworth's writing doesn't mention this, but by becoming
| an amateur, it's a little easier to see how much a great artist
| must have mastered to express what they did. Standing on the
| foothills to see the peaks...
|
| And I think that's possible with kids, first just by exposing
| them to the idea of making, that they can be a producer rather
| than a consumer of sounds and visuals. And then by modeling the
| behavior, giving them an example of an adult who sits down and
| makes something physical.
|
| And finally by actually trying to teach them skills, one inch at
| a time. A lot of kids in America grow up without those things 1)
| the idea that they can create; 2) access to tools however basic;
| 3) the vision of someone actually doing it; 4) the support of
| someone who can put them on the gradual path of skill
| acquisition. Like most elements of culture and behavior, it
| starts at home, and it's hard to create effective institutional
| proxies.
|
| PG gets into this a little when he talks about transcribing his
| younger son's oral stories. It's that kind of parental support
| that parts the waters so that a kid can see what's possible.
| vjk800 wrote:
| I don't know. My parents made me learn how to play piano as a
| child (well, they didn't force me, but let me understand that
| they really wanted it) and as a result I was completely
| uninterested in piano and classical music in general for a long
| time. Somehow the stuff you grow up with always becomes
| uninteresting until maybe later into the adulthood.
| vonnik wrote:
| I hear that. I also wasted several years of piano lessons
| that I had to attend as a boy, only to come back to the
| instrument much later. I'm very much on the "inspire kids to
| want to do something" side of education and skill
| development, which is why I think it's important for them to
| see adults having a lot of fun, or making something
| meaningful, so that they want to do it. That makes all the
| difference, and it's one reason why families of musicians
| tend to breed future musicians.
| wombat-man wrote:
| Same. I wonder if my parents had me try a few more things if
| I'd have found something I'm a little more interested in.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Same, for classical guitar. I hated it. But now I have
| perfect pitch, which apparently requires early
| exposure/training of the ear.
| temporarara wrote:
| Interesting. I would have thought that perfect pitch is not
| helpful at all with classical guitar. Can you tolerate
| music that is (deliberately) slightly out of standard
| tuning?
| ghaff wrote:
| My parents--and probably mother in particular--were in
| retrospect very determined not to push me into (non-academic)
| activities that I didn't pro-actively express an interest in.
| (I think my mother had piano lessons that she didn't really
| like.)
|
| I'm not saying this was good or bad but did result in me
| never having any real exposure to doing music or art.
|
| And I never had much in the way of music or art in school.
| sharadov wrote:
| I disagree - art is emphasized a lot in the early years in US
| public schools.
|
| My kids were constantly drawing and coloring till their 2nd
| grade.
|
| And there is a lot of emphasis on making crafts.
|
| My older one who is 11, has projects - where they are asked to
| research a topic, make a presentation and speak about that in
| class.
| vonnik wrote:
| I'm sure that's the case for a fair number of schools. And I
| also think that in many others, it doesn't happen. There's
| huge variation across schools and districts. But... I think
| parents can greatly augment those school activities if they
| have the skills that students are practicing, and when that's
| the case, and when students see adults making meaningful use
| of such skills, I suspect they learn faster!
| esafak wrote:
| I think you need to reflect to develop taste, not just create
| art for fun as kids do, and this is something schools don't
| teach until high school. It also happens if you go deep on
| your own.
| diamondap wrote:
| One of the great lines of 18th century theater comes from Richard
| Brinsley Sheridan's "The School for Scandal." Sir Peter, alarmed
| at his wife's extravagant spending, asks her why she buys such
| expensive things. She says, "Because I have taste." To which he
| replies, "You had no taste when you married me."
| [deleted]
| pjc50 wrote:
| > The general principle that governs taste is the association of
| ideas, and this, fortunately, can be most easily illustrated: "I
| like such a person because her voice puts me in mind of my
| mother's. I like this walk because I was very happy the last time
| I was here with my sister. I think green is the prettiest of all
| colors; my father's room is painted green, and it is very
| cheerful, and I have been very happy in that room, and besides,
| the grass is green in spring."
|
| This feels like an extraordinarily Modern view, in that it's not
| suffering from the idea of an ideal standard of divine beauty
| embedded in the universe, but rather that it is discovered by the
| viewer and their emotional associations.
|
| It's also very pluralist, this advice to expose your child to the
| best examples of art from a variety of cultures.
| shakow wrote:
| > in that it's not suffering from the idea of an ideal standard
| of divine beauty embedded in the universe
|
| Frankly, it's your take that feels extraordinarily modern. Do
| you really believe that people living at this time, being
| familiar with centuries of style movements (from Greco-Roman
| antiquity to Italian Renaissance through Baroque and Bronze age
| Egypt) that were all considered to be beautiful, would cling to
| an ideal standard of beauty?
|
| Why do modern humans believe that for some reason, they
| discovered thinking very recently and that all their
| forefathers were obscure brutes?
| pjc50 wrote:
| You can find people _today_ arguing for a single absolute
| standard of beauty. Usually they mean "neoclassical
| architecture".
|
| And indeed it's what the original author from that time was
| arguing against, the "bigotry" mentioned. So it was clearly
| an attitude held by some people at the time.
| shakow wrote:
| I'm not saying there were no dumb people in the past, I'm
| saying that being amazed that most people of the past could
| not see further than their nose is a very naive take.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I can find identical twins joined at the hip today, too ..
| that does not mean it is prevalent or even important to
| note in every example
| Dig1t wrote:
| They are not only arguing in favor of neoclassical
| architecture, I have met plenty of people who believe that
| Bauhaus is the only standard of beauty and that every space
| should look and feel like an Apple Store.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| Bela Lagosi is dead! he is dead!
| ilyt wrote:
| > You can find people today arguing for a single absolute
| standard of beauty. Usually they mean "neoclassical
| architecture".
|
| And I'd call them imbeciles, why you think that "the people
| like that exist" is argument for anything ?
| castlecrasher2 wrote:
| >And I'd call them imbeciles, why you think that "the
| people like that exist" is argument for anything ?
|
| I agree, I don't understand these sorts of arguments.
| While I suppose deference to anecdotal evidence has
| always been around it seems more and more prolific as of
| late, and more often than is used as justification for a
| baseless argument simply because others argue baselessly.
| finite_depth wrote:
| As a person very much raised with heavy upper-class British
| influence (one side of my family comes from nobility, and while
| I'm American, I maintain very strong cultural, philosophical,
| and even linguistic ties to Britain), I'm gonna take this top
| comment spot to hang on a caution: this way of thinking can be
| _really really bad for you_ in sufficient quantities.
|
| It turns experiences into thoughts. It separates you from your
| emotions by changing your priority from experiencing,
| processing, and accepting your feelings to trying to analyze
| them. And if you, like me, are prone to mental illness, this
| can be devastating - because emotions often do not have a
| reason, especially if your brain has strong natural tendencies.
|
| When you're depressed or anxious, sadness or anxiety form of
| their own accord. You can feel terrible even when things around
| you are good, or scared even when there is no danger. And it is
| very easy to get into the habit of trying to justify these
| feelings after the fact. When you feel sad and the world around
| you provides you no reason to, the justification you can give -
| if you're trying to rationalize your emotions - is that the
| problem is _you_ , and that is an abyss you can easily find
| yourself trapped in.
|
| Worse, this habit leads to you being "on the side of" those
| tendencies. When someone tries to help you to understand that
| your view of the world is skewed, your habit of justifying and
| rationalizing makes that feel like an attack on your reason or
| intelligence. You're not depressed, see, because there's this
| logical reason you came up with for why you feel bad. And there
| is always a reason you can give, a justification for why you
| feel bad, because life always has problems that can be invoked
| to explain emotions that exist in their own right. But they're
| not _why_ you 're miserable, they're just the reasons you give
| for why being miserable is rational and right. Healing from
| that kind of illness requires recognizing your reason and your
| feelings are different things with different roles, and that to
| try to rationalize emotion is to make a category error.
|
| Introspection can be good, but introspection must pair with
| experience, not replace it. You may like such a person because
| her voice puts you in mind of your mother's, but that origin or
| association is usually not what is important - the fact that
| you like them is. You may like the walk because you had a
| lovely day on it once, but what matters is that the walk brings
| you joy. The analysis is useful largely when your emotions
| misguide you ("I keep getting into bad relationships because
| they draw from X emotional weakness", for example), but even
| then, you want to feel your feelings even if you do not let
| them guide your beliefs. When I'm in a depressive episode, I
| can't not feel bad, but what I _can_ do is recognize that my
| negative feelings are not truths about the world, so that they
| do not poison me into a factual belief that things can never
| improve. When I 'm anxious, I can't not feel the fear, but I
| can recognize that it's not a sign of real danger and that I
| may need to endure it to make some personal progress. These
| things aren't about rational understanding of my emotions,
| they're about a recognition that I do not and cannot control
| them, only how I respond to them.
|
| I tend to think this sort of thing is a pretty big "original
| sin" of Anglo-American (or perhaps more generally Protestant?)
| culture. It arises in a kind of guilt-based virtue ethics, one
| that I think was originally religious, that tells us that our
| moral value comes from our impulses and drives, not from what
| we choose to do with them. It told me, in particular, that my
| inability to force myself to be more motivated or calm was a
| personal failing, not a piece of me fundamentally separate from
| my reason or my virtue. It tells us, as a culture, not to
| listen to ourselves, not to accept half of what we are, in
| favor of suppression and repression and self-judgement, and it
| leaves us as half-people as a result.
| msteffen wrote:
| I find your comment fascinating and also I don't understand
| it at all.
|
| > You may like such a person because her voice puts you in
| mind of your mother's, but that origin or association is
| usually not what is important--the fact that you like them
| is.
|
| Are feelings a black box? That seems like a sensible way to
| see anxiety and depression, which are bad feelings that
| happen for no (good) reason. But then how should we analyze
| art, which is what TFA is about, IIUC? Should we stop
| analyzing art because our enjoyment of it is as inscrutable
| as depression? That doesn't seem right (to me) either.
|
| Maybe art can only be understood in the context of groups of
| people, whose cerebral machinery and personal experiences
| will vary, but whose cultural context won't? Maybe your
| personal feelings about art can only say a tiny amount about
| the art, but can say a lot about you, to yourself. I guess,
| if nothing else, knowing that you like a particular kind of
| art is good in that it gives you a way to make yourself
| happier.
|
| I'm very curious for your thoughts if you happen to come back
| to this thread! Thanks!!
| finite_depth wrote:
| [dead]
| vonnik wrote:
| I love this, and it strikes me that one of the main differences
| between then and now is that we are awash in cheap objects.
| Isolation from trash in the service of taste seems almost
| impossible.
|
| Secondly, I can't think of a contemporary national authority I
| would defer to.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Secondly, I can't think of a contemporary national authority
| I would defer to.
|
| I imagine people living in the developed world defer to many
| national authorities all the time. Being able to eat almost
| anything sold and drink tap water with near zero risk of
| getting sick, being able to trust doctors and medicine, safely
| flying from one place to another, minimal risk of being in a
| fire, having all these wireless communications devices work
| without interference, not worrying about electronic money and
| securities account balances suddenly disappearing, etc.
| vonnik wrote:
| I should have clarified:
|
| This piece is about matters of taste. So a national authority
| regarding aesthetics.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-12 23:01 UTC)