Yep, for centuries (millennia, actually) the pattern is the same. A social change movement is invariably viewed as having "gone too far", but in order to be perceived as reasonable, the critics invariably say that the previous generation was right. Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as having gone too far (the American revolution and the abolitionist movement included).
In general, conservatives (like Pinker) pretty much always get the history wrong (the facts, the interpretation, and usually both), while liberals are usually wrong about the future (and I say this as a radical leftist). That's why it's easy to poke fun at conservatives who write history (certainly those who, like Pinker, are not professional historians), while liberals are always surprised of the turn of events (for good or bad; when liberals -- including myself -- are optimistic I'm worried, and when they're pessimistic I know I can relax).
[1]: Feminists not so much; there's been a constant decline in the fervor feminist activism over the past century, but certainly, say, the French revolutionaries. Feminism has always been special for many understandable reasons. It is almost always the most timid form of social activism, yet almost always perceived as the most radical.
> Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as having gone too far (the American revolution and the abolitionist movement included).
Sure, by some. It's also true that in about 100% of cases where people have argued for legitimately bad social change (eugenics, communism, prohibition, etc.), those people (and their allies) cast their opponents as immoral and regressive.
It's like Carl Sagan said: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Today on Twitter I saw a conservative arguing that people who deny the personhood of a fetus are like slaveowners who denied the personhood of slaves. As a radical leftist, I doubt you'd agree with that. But this person is just as convinced as you that they are the progressive on this issue.
So we need a better heuristic than "people arguing social change are probably right." Some are right, others are not.
Right, but the point that Pinker is missing that we are what we are because people fought to get us here -- the very same kind of people he dismisses.
Just a nitpick: communism has certainly not been "legitimately bad" everywhere. In my country (Israel), we have practiced communism (on a local scale, in the Kibbutzim) for much longer than the USSR (over 100 years now), and it's a more extreme form of communism (makes the USSR seem like a capitalist country by comparison), and while it has certainly not been an unqualified success (especially the communal raising of children), and it is certainly crumbling now (due to powerful external and internal pressures), it has been the complete opposite of failure. It has been entirely democratic for 100 years (with problems, but not unlike in any democratic system), and one of Israel's proudest achievements. So communism was an overall great success in Israel for a century.
When it come to history I find most political movements to be wrong on both facts and interpretation. Take women's suffrage in the US for example and the relation to shortage in conscription at the end of world war 1. Following liberal writing there exist no relation. According to those writing the right to vote came through demonstrating and women empowering themselves. True or false? Should we interpret it as a victory for self empowerment or as a result of lack of soldiers during the last year of the biggest war the world had seen (also called the war to end all wars)?
An other example: witch hunts. According to liberal writing those where all campaigns targeting the weak, poor and vulnerable in society. Historians points towards campaigns that transfered land and money from the accused families into the pocket of the church. True or false? Should we interpret it as men oppressing poor women or as a form plunder for profit by a religious institution that targeted those with something to take?
Personally I lean towards not trusting political movements when they write about history. Facts don't fit the nice narrative that is needed to gain mass adaption. Usually the truth is a bit from column A and column B and involve multiple events which together create an environment where famous historical facts happened. It is in the realization of those events and the interpretation that we can grasp what actually happened in the past and why.
> Should we interpret it as a victory for self empowerment or as a result of lack of soldiers during the last year of the biggest war the world had seen?
Clearly as the first. Women would not have gotten the vote without the suffrage movement, just as they didn't get it after the Civil War. However, the war had an effect on the timing, as is often the case with social change movements. They can go on for decades, and finally succeed when an external event forces the dominating powers' hands. No one would say that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the cause of WWI. The alliance system was rigged to blow at the first spark, and that spark happened to be the assassination.
> Should we interpret it as men oppressing poor women or as a form plunder for profit by a religious institution that targeted those with something to take?
As medieval and early modern history was my focus in grad school, I must say that I have not seen the witch hunt described so simplistically by any professional historian that I've read, and they were relatively uncommon. Like most things in history, they were a result of a complex interaction of factors, but as is often the case, the powerful are rarely the victims of events of that sort, regardless of their complex causes.
> Personally I lean towards not trusting political movements when they write about history.
I wasn't talking about political writing but about scholarly or pseudo-scholarly works, and all writers have political leanings. Liberal writers tend to write history better than conservative ones.
One could as easily interpret that the abolishment movements relation with the civil war has about as much validity as the relation between the first world war and the suffrage movement. I am not saying you are wrong, but that political writers tend to disregard facts and make interpretations that fits their views regardless if they are left or right, usually to the detriment of the truth.
> I have not seen the witch hunt described so simplistically
Out of all writing I have read, only two books that I recall described the witch hunts as complex causes rather than a simplistic prosecution of defenseless women. I see it so often in political texts I usually tick of a mental box when i see it.
When it comes to plundering, history don't seem to often show that its the most powerful in society that becomes victims. They can employ armies to defend themselves or buy enough influence to not become a target. Usually those that are targeted is those with resources to defend but that relies on social constructs for defense.
But to go back to the claim about liberal writers, I can recommend a book called Debt: The First 5000 Years. The author was involved with the occupy movement so not sure if that defines him as a liberal writer or not. What I found interesting in that book (outside of the overall focus on debt) is the description of bridge gifts, slavery and veils, each having a very different interpretation to common liberal views. Since the author is a professor of anthropology he also supports those interpretations with facts that usually missing when those subjects are being discussed in a historical perspective.
> Liberal writers tend to write history better than conservative ones.
It is very possible that liberal writers lie less and tend to be less intentional dishonest than conservative ones. Its a very different claim that liberal writers are usually right and conservative writers usually wrong.
> but that political writers tend to disregard facts and make interpretations that fits their views regardless if they are left or right, usually to the detriment of the truth.
All writers are political (I would hope all people) and there are many brilliant historians, some writing analyses that would appear contradictory to their stated views (my best professor was like that).
> simplistic prosecution of defenseless women
I find that hard to believe, as women were abused on a much larger scale before, during and after the witch trials. Defenseless women make easy targets, but I find it hard to believe that any historian would consider that an explanation. Women are so marginalized from all positions of power and are completely at the mercy of their fathers, brothers or husbands, but let's try just a few for being witches to drive the point home!?
https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/29/why-i-no-longer-identify...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/...