0

Source can be found here. Here is the excerpt I am concerning about.

In surveying nearly two centuries of this relationship, it is wise to keep in mind an exiom of professional historians-that we should be careful not to view the past in terms of our own times, and make judgements accordignly. Certail parallels often become obvious, to be sure, but to assert what an individual president should or should not have done, by president standardds, is to violate historical context.

In the first two line, I understand the meaning but I am confused with these lines. Could anyone help me to comprehend the meaning of this context.

Certail parallels often become obvious, to be sure, but to assert what an individual president should or should not have done, by president standardds, is to violate historical context.

  • We notice obvious parallels, of course, but to judge a former president's actions by present standards (that is, today's standards) ignores the context in which the former president was acting. BTW, you have "presiddent" where it should read "present". – Tᴚoɯɐuo Sep 29 '15 at 18:02
0

Certain parallels often become obvious, to be sure

There are parallels (similarities) between historical events and present day events

To assert what an individual president should or should not have done, by present standards, is to violate historical context

If you judge any one president by what they did according to how the world is today, it takes their actions out of the context of history.

This site is temporarily in read only mode and not accepting new answers.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .