Honest questions: When was the last time that being on the right side of history meant lauding the failed assassination attempts of a duly elected president? When was the last time that being on the right side of history meant publicly encouraging the harm of those who voted differently and propagating self-harm to spite the perceived opposition?
I’ve been an American citizen for three decades, but I am a Bengali immigrant born in Libya. Perhaps it’s a language barrier; English is my fourth language after Bengali, Arabic and Hindi, though it is the language I’m most comfortable with today, the language in which I defended my doctoral dissertation. Perhaps I’m missing some context somewhere, nuance reserved only for the most discerning, sophisticated Americans, of which, possibly, I am not.
I genuinely want to understand how the most militant calls for violence can come from those preaching peace and love and how the most diverse, equitable and inclusive Americans can seek forcefully to install ideological uniformity exclusive and inequitable to those who think differently.
A curious pattern emerges when examining historical movements and their participants’ certainty about being “on the right side of history.” This phrase often serves as a rhetorical tool to claim moral superiority without requiring deeper justification. Throughout history, many groups, convinced of their moral righteousness, turned out to be remembered for their errors and crimes.
The Spanish Inquisition believed they were saving souls. Supporters of slavery cited religious and scientific “proof” of their position’s correctness. Supporters of eugenics, including many leading intellectuals of the early 20th century, believed they were improving humanity. Communist regimes responsible for millions of deaths were sure they were creating a more just world, cosplaying as clairvoyants equipped to assess the present through the lens of the future as if it were the past.
The pattern continues, with various groups declaring themselves “on the right side of history.” This declaration often signals a concerning unwillingness to engage with counterarguments or consider the complexity of issues. It can lead to dehumanizing opponents and justifying harmful actions in service of supposedly righteous ends.
The phrase itself reflects a misunderstanding of how history works. History isn’t a straight line of moral progress with straightforward “right” and “wrong” sides. It’s a complex interplay of competing ideas, circumstances and consequences that often become clear retrospectively. Claiming to be on the right side of history before the present reaches the future has historically been one of the most obvious signs that we are not on the right side of history.
We must ask why this phrase has been so popular throughout history in all its translations and adaptations. What is there to gain by feigning prescience? They say hindsight is 20-20, and retrospect is often unquestioned and unchallenged. If present-day actions could be as unquestioned and unchallenged as retrospect, it becomes easier to convince the masses that their best interests are in mind within those actions. It also becomes easier to convince the masses that contrarians have the worst interests of the masses in mind.
Although unethical, brainwashing the masses to believe that we are on the right side of history is the most efficient and often the most effective approach to garnering unwavering support. If we are indeed on the right side of history, we wouldn’t have to try so hard to convince the masses that we are.
Given the breadth and depth of historical context, it may be time to consider the possibility that those who weaponize cancel culture and character assassination against dissent may not be on the right side of history, especially if they are precluding their position as being on the right side as a given, like communists, eugenicists, enslavers, warmongers, etc. of the past. The mental gymnastics that have been employed to justify harm toward dissent and propagate self-harm to spite the perceived opposition, calling for violence in the name of peace, are akin to historical examples of indoctrination.
Moral progress typically comes from the willingness to acknowledge complexity, remaining open to change — not being overconfident in our righteousness. Admirable historical figures often expressed doubt and wrestled with difficult questions rather than claiming absolute certainty.
Thus, for anyone willing to respond, assume blissful ignorance, and help a Bengali immigrant who was born in Libya understand how justifying harm toward dissent and propagating self-harm to spite the perceived opposition, calling for violence in the name of peace, equates to being on the “right side of history.”
