That's just how it was, right?

While sitting in a lecture, my professor is discussing the history of the theory of Evolution. Once she gets around to discussing Darwin and his contemporaries, she mentions that Darwin (like many Anglo men of that time) was "a bit racist, sexist, etc." but that we can't judge him based off of that criteria due to his being a product of his time. This was said by someone with a Masters degree. 

This is quite a common tendency in race based discussions on the side of apologists, isn't it though? To take up the side of historic figures and excuse their philosophical short-comings (that we would normally chastise others for) in the name of them being a "product of their times". Funny, Darwin is considered "revolutionary" with Evolution, yet "a product of his time" in terms of racism, sexism, etc. Funny how we cherry pick how and what he was a product of when it suits certain agendas. 

I've always found this line of thinking pretty ridiculous. The truth is that it isn't that he was a "product of his time", as though all men in notable positions thought as such. Thomas Paine, one of the biggest names of the American Revolution, wanted to do away with slavery altogether, yet many of his contemporaries were quite the opposite. 

Bartolome de Las Casas witnessed the brutality enacted against the indigenous Arawak people of what is now Puerto Rico and wrote an extensive essay to the Spanish royalty asking for this behavior to be condemned and punished. Again, contrary to Spanish feelings of superiority and Catholic dominance, he was unlike other contemporaries. What product was he of, exactly?

The next time someone attempts to justify a publicly well-renowned figures actions that might tarnish an otherwise impeccable reputation, remind them that they might just be products of their own experiences, not their "time".