[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.