In the era of incessant political sloganeering, perhaps no phrase is more vapid and useless than the catch phrase of non-thinking people everywhere: “the right side of history.”
“The right side of history” is unique in that it shows that the speaker is not concerned with how their contemporaries will view them, but rather that more concern should be afforded to potential future judges. The increased usage of this phrase is likely tied to how we view our history here in America, which is often seen in a very negative light. We rightfully judge the errors of our forefathers. We often see the places where they went wrong. Including where they were, at least in our perception, outright evil. While this critical lens is necessary for getting a full picture of our history, I think it is unwise, as well as inaccurate, to place our focus solely on the bad. Rather, I think a balanced view of history, both the good and the bad, is important. Conclusions about what our history means should be left to each person to decide. To instead force a particular historical perspective while criticizing those who offer alternative viewpoints is surely a way to not be on “the right side of history.”
Returning to the “right side of history” phrase, it seems to me that along with being a way to excuse or justify current actions and beliefs in the name of future generations that will supposedly judge those holding those particular positions, it is also a way to attack contrasting beliefs and positions with little to no effort on the accusers end. This is most prevalent in politics, where one’s political opponents often claim that if you do not support a particular political position, you are somehow worse of a person, and that the history books will remember you in particular as the wrongdoer. Seemingly this is to imply that they will have the good parts of the book written about them.
Setting aside the obvious delusion that people who use this phrase unironically are experiencing when using this illusion, the more concerning issue is the number of people that will concede their previous convictions when approached with this rather poor argument. Perhaps people feel compelled to concede because often “the right side of history” is used as a way to seemingly end the argument, and forces the person who would be on the “wrong” side of history to have to make the impossible case of justifying their beliefs to people who are not even alive yet.
The irony that often accompanies this phrase’s use satisfies and amuses me. By saying “the right side of history,” people who use this phrase seem to forget that the primary discussions of history are of the “bad” guys, and hardly anyone mentions the “virtuous” societies of yore.
Perhaps more issues could be solved if instead of speculating and pretending to act in accord with standards that are quite literally nonexistent, we could instead focus on finding out why there are different perspectives on a whole host of particular issues, without feeling the need to present one as being the definitively “wrong” historical take.
You can also view this article here.