[poster123]

Why is it so "shocking"? Discussing racial differences was more common in his time, and being a great scientist does not necessarily coincide with general wisdom.

I hope this story will help people realize that we should not ban the work of people who have said problematic things.

[Sjenk]

Why is it so "shocking"? Discussing racial differences was more common in his time...

Thats why they put it between quotes I guess, and I guess for the extra clicks.

I hope this story will help people realize that we should not ban the work of people who have said problematic things.

Also this. That is the reason I shared this article.

[SZJX]

That is a way of looking at it. Another perspective is that any attempt to deify a real human being is bound to be nonsensical, and we should always be wary of the complex human nature behind a carefully constructed "public figure".

At least hopefully nobody will somehow look at this as an excuse for their own racist agenda (i.e. look, such a greatly respected person has also been so racist, why can't I?). The simplistic attempt to instill one-dimensional interpretations of personalities in the public consciousness has to stop, and hopefully both the educational institutions and the media can always remind people of the complexities of every individual. Though this seems to be a tall order at least for now.

[Sjenk]

At least hopefully nobody will somehow look at this as an excuse for their own racist agenda (i.e. look, such a greatly respected person has also been so racist, why can't I?)

Lets hope it, although I am afraid, there will be persons who use it as an excuse or even some sort of scientific evidence or proof. I.e: "See even one of the smartest person walked on this earth finds Chinese gross this must proof something about the Chinese right?!"

[ynonym00s]

I am not sure why this has been downvoted. Will somebody care to explain?

[tome]

It takes more than 17 minutes for the votes on a comment to reach a level worth mentioning.

[SZJX]

This is also addressed in the original article:

> Rosenkranz told the Guardian that although views like Einstein’s were prevalent at the time, they were not universal. “That’s usually the reaction I get – ‘we have to understand, he was of the zeitgeist, part of the time’ – but I think I tried here and there to give a broader context. There were other views out there, more tolerant views,” he said.

[mikeash]

Einstein was a great physicist, but I’m not looking to him for moral guidance. If he was awful for his time that would be sad, but if he’s merely average, I don’t see why we’d care.

[Bartweiss]

> I’m not looking to him for moral guidance

I suppose this is the question. Einstein is certainly more known for his moral legacy than most scientists.

He was a WWII refugee and a pacifist, he authored (and later regretted) the letter sparking US nuclear ambitions, he joined the NAACP and his offer of testimony in W.E.B. DuBois' trial led to the charges against him being dropped. To me, this isn't merely the halo effect around his academic work - Einstein was at least a modest player in morality and social politics in his time, and his work fighting racism in the US does add particular relevance to the story.

I agree, though, that the story is already being overblown; we're getting news stories with Einstein's picture edited to look demonic. This is a scientist's diary from the 1920s containing views less racist than ones openly stated by US politicians from the last 50 years.

[the_af]

That's the right point of view, in my opinion. Unfortunately many people tend to take the word of intellectuals outside their realm of expertise. I'm sure you've heard arguments about religion which mentioned Einstein's remark that "God doesn't play with dice" (it doesn't help that people frequently misunderstand this quote, but even if they didn't: why would Einstein's religious beliefs -- or lack of them -- matter?).

[brodo]

I think journalists may care because they come from universities which teach postmodernist 'deconstruction'. Basically, they are looking for a reason to dismiss everything that western culture has ever built.

[oldcynic]

I don't think they have given a helpful broader context though. How common were those more tolerant views in that era? If just a few extreme outliers or a significant minority would be relevant.

This is citizen of the Weimar Republic writing 3 years after the end of WW1. China had joined the allies in 1917, the same year as the US. Education of the era tended to encourage belief in the Empire first, civilising mission. Not to forget years of wartime propaganda. Belief in eugenics was rising and becoming popular. Including in the US and UK. It was a little later in the century those ideas would die out.

Certainly tolerance was famously prevalent in the theatre district of Berlin in the pre-Nazi early 30s. Elsewhere not so much. No doubt the historians I've read have also been biased or incomplete - that of course is far harder to judge.

[acct1771]

Ron Paul, for example.