I was thinking about this the other day. One thing I wondered—are there any examples of “regressions” that occurred in human history because the change in culture leaned too progressive? And by progressive/conservative, I mean in the sense of the directionality of culture, not necessarily their modern political connotations.

For example, Prohibition was a “conservative” movement because alcohol was originally permitted and then became disallowed. Later, it was restored. What is an example of something that was previously disallowed, became allowed and widely acceptable for a period of time, and then became disallowed again such that it is still disallowed or considered immoral today?

> Prohibition was a “conservative” movement

This makes no sense, by definition it was a progressive movement at the time: for as long as we know, people drank alcohol, and then you get these progressive people (many of them women) trying to change the society for the better. It was a failed progressive policy, that if it stuck we would have seen it as a good thing in retrospect and call it progressive - just like banning opium in cough medicine.

Conservative means keeping the old way, in this case: keep drinking alcohol freely.

It's interesting that it depends on historical context: In Iran (and other muslim majority countries) prohibition is conservative, since it already exists for a while.

Of course it does, Christianity must have appeared progressive in the first few centuries...now it's as conservative as you can get, at least in the Western world.

Prohibition was a change in the established order, so it was by definition progressive.

The labels are often misused but really that's all it is. Progressivism wants things to change, conservatism wants them to stay the same. You need a balance of both.

As for examples of things that were forbidden, then allowed, then forbidden again there are already good examples in the other comments. Things around family, sexuality, forms of government. The postulat also assumes that all societies in the world are uniform and accepting/forbidding the same things.

Uhh what, Prohibition was a progressive and pro feminist movement.

- Marriages where the wife is significantly below 18

- Pederasty in ancient Greece

(Though I'm not sure to which extent those were disallowed before)

Eugenics and communism were both seen as progressive at the time, at least by their supporters. The conservative take on communism was we should preserve the existing order, that the progressives wanted to disrupt and replace.

USIan cultural soft power is exporting very pervasive anti-sex messaging that is being picked up across the globe.

Free speech

What was forbidden, then allowed, then forbidden again?

A given generation of humans always think they know better than the previous ones.

I'm pretty sure nobody in History thought they were the ones living in the Dark Ages of History. The Dark Ages were always before us.

Yes - but also no, we clearly have better answers to questions of race and slavery, and we shouldn't doubt that we made mistakes.

That's not at all to disagree with the article, I think changing art of the time is very misleading, if you don't want to read such things, just read newer books.

> we clearly have better answers to questions of race

Do we? It seems like racial tensions are higher than they've been during my lifetime because there's a grievance culture explicitly focused on race instead of treating people as individuals based on their merits. By the standards of today, MLK's request to treat people based not on the color of their skin but the content of their character is rejected as racist.

Racial tensions being higher doesn’t necessarily mean that we have the wrong answers. Certainly racial tensions went up in the lead up to the civil war. They also went up during the civil rights movement

Civil War -> end of slavery

Civil rights movement -> equality under the law of all Americans (with later protections under affirmative action actually giving minorities a modest advantage in some situtions)

What hoped for outcome is being sought now? "Give me money because things aren't fair" isn't a change in law or status, it's grievance politics that has no logical end.

Disparate outcomes aren't proof of social injustice; disparate outcomes are proof of disparate behavior.

I don't follow why you are being downvoted because reparations in the form of money paid out will likely never quell the demand for more reparations.

I have to disagree that hyper-focusing on race and carving out "safe spaces", that allow different racial groups to gather exclusively, and teaching kids that people with their same skin color did bad things that are still not fixed - implying that they should carry the sins of the father - is at all a better state of racial understanding.

I just don't see bridge building taking place in the current approaches.

Not at all clear to me that we have the best attitude toward race now.

I did not imply that our answers to questions regarding race and slavery have worsened over time.

My argument is that we should not conceal history because our responses have generally improved over the course of history (and will continue to improve in the future). History serves as a reminder that we must remain humble and open to further progress.

I agree with you in the changing of art, I would not change them but rather label or restrict to adults, so they serve us as what they are: pieces of history to learn from.

I would argue race was better handled in the antiquity. Rulers could be of any race, slaves could be of any race.

Some slaves who were teachers or artists were also probably happier and more respected than a lot of "free" people of today.

  I'm obviously playing devils advocate here, but as I said in another comment: we always think we've figured things out better than the people before us.