This is a question about how we should talk about history. People often use phrases like "He was a man of his times" when discussing controversial figures from the past. The impulse is that we should not "Judge them by the standards of our time". I understand that this is called anachronism and it is obviously something to worry about if you love history.

But is the reverse something that historians worry and caution about as well? Sometimes it seems to me that perspectives like the above do just as much harm to an authentic understanding of history as what they are trying to fight against. They simplify historical societies by washing away the fact that people have always disagreed with things, they erase the efforts of 'the losing side' and the agency and humanity of historical characters - as if they couldn't even possible have complex thoughts and feelings but just feel with their 'times'. Often it reduces to something more specific anyway - that was his/her culture - because very few ideas and practices are adopted around the world.

I want to give a specific historical example and maybe someone can help me understand what is the most historically responsible way to talk about these things. Cecil John Rhodes is a controversial figure in South Africa and the UK. Often when critics of his discuss some of their objections to him, people will remark that 'he was a man of his times'. But there were contemporary criticisms of Rhodes which were equally harsh, by people who knew him personally like the Schreiner family. Oliver Schreiner said:

• "We fight Rhodes because he means so much of oppression, injustice, & moral degradation to South Africa; - but if he passed away tomorrow there still remains the terrible fact that something in our society has formed the matrix which has fed, nourished, & built up such a man!"

As for 'the times', it is true that there was a lot of racism present in those times. But the 19th century was also when Great Britain adopted abolitionism and used the might of its navy to enforce a ban on human slavery (to the best of my understanding). There was an entire Cape Liberal movement with an ostensibly non-racial Constitution in the Cape. (Source: Rhodes - The Race for Africa, Antony Williams).

tl;dr - I would like historians opinions and advice about how to talk about history in a way that doesn't judge it by our standards, without going to the other extreme like I've detailed above?

-----------------

Submission Note:

I hope I've phrased this question right. I know it is a bit meta because it's about the historical process and historical language, rather than an event. I don't want to start a political argument about Rhodes, I just wanted to give a specific example where I have done research and read some sources about his time...