History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Which was a reasonable grievance, but the radicals who were really upset about the taxation also didn't really want representation, they just wanted not taxes.
Eurocentrism
- Thread starter Krajzen
- Start date
Which was a reasonable grievance, but the radicals who were really upset about the taxation also didn't really want representation, they just wanted not taxes.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Maybe so. But that isn't your original claim. "Historians are perspectivally bound" and "the very goal of history is to provide an apologia for certain political ideas" are two very different claims. The first hardly assumes that latter, that because historians are bound by ideological perspective they necessarily function as political hacks, and the latter doesn't actually assume the latter, that because somebody writes history with ulterior motives, that is the only way it could be written. (You'll recall that the early empircists were strongly critical of earlier historians who they believed to be guilty of this approach, but themselves firmly believed in the possibility of truthful and accurate history.)
What you're trying to do, here, is move from "historians do not know everything" to "historians are not to be trusted", which is, as I said, contentious.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
It's worse then that, because it moves "historians are not perfect" into "historians act under bad faith."
If history has a purpose, that requires the conscious effort on the part of the historian, or some sort of Telos that applies even without the persons knowledge. Under the first one, the claim is simply untrue, and the latter it is very, very contentious.
It also assumes that having a certain perspective makes you an apologist or advocate for a certain political system, which is obviously not the case.
If history has a purpose, that requires the conscious effort on the part of the historian, or some sort of Telos that applies even without the persons knowledge. Under the first one, the claim is simply untrue, and the latter it is very, very contentious.
It also assumes that having a certain perspective makes you an apologist or advocate for a certain political system, which is obviously not the case.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Theoretically, the distinction is valid. In practice, the two are so much overlapping in terms of appearance that the distinction is fairly useless not to mention hard to make. We can distinguish well meaning historians like Howard Zinn and Niall Ferguson from total wackos like David Irving, though in the end, Howard Zinn and Niall Ferguson probably only defend political views that are less malign than those of David Irving and perhaps do not differ significantly in methods. They still use history to defend and actually advance their political views, even if they stubbornly deny it.
In some ways, it works the other way around: Historians of discredited political viewpoints often churn out history that is significantly out of line with reality than those with more subtle perspectives.
More like historians must be treated with a healthy distrust.
Quackers
The Frog
Winner said:
This. Although I do have a strong interest in American history but I would imagine that is an extension of Eurocentrism.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Not "would be", but they are.
And I am of course talking about people in Western Europe and in North America. Even if they are interested in history of what they define as Eastern Europe, then this interest is very limited - they focus mostly on recent history of this region. There are only a few "Western" historians who are exceptions to this rule (recently for example prof. Richard Butterwick, author of "The Polish Revolution and the Catholic Church 1788-1792: A Political History" book).
Butterwick's book got mostly positive reviews in Poland. It is one of very few examples of highly professional English-language books on Polish history.
Most of English-language books on Polish history are popular history books. Norman Davies for example - his books are not really scientific / professional. Such books popularize history of the region in the West, but they are not free of numerous mistakes and misconceptions (I'm talking about N. Davies now).
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That really is the same statement.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Kaiserguard said:
Well, there are no historians that are 100% objective (if being 100% objective is even possible).
But of course we can distinguish between historians who smuggle into their books (and then promote) their views more stubbornly than others.
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
That's probably because the events in Eastern Europe are of relatively low impact compared to what's happening in the West.
Starting at 1700, both the Commonwealth and Ottoman Empire got walked all over by its neighbours, neither played a role in colonialism, and both took the backseat in industrialization.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Niall Ferguson is the perfect example of historian as ideologue. He has essentially done nothing in his career research-wise, but has said the right things and, as court praise poet of the elite, the elite have rewarded him, given him power, prestige and voice.
Don't think any of his books are specifically about that, but maybe one of them has something, I dunno ... you'd probably know better than I.
Don't think any of his books are specifically about that, but maybe one of them has something, I dunno ... you'd probably know better than I.
SeekTruthFromFacts
King
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 667
Pangur Bán;13077327 said:
I can't believe I'm left defending Niall Ferguson, but aren't his books on merchant banks (Rothschilds, S.G.Warburg) proper pieces of archival research?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Yes, 'essentially ... nothing' is maybe strong, but they aren't particularly research-strong. Probably has assistants do that sort of thing these days. The point about NF is that he is prominent not because of his historical research, but by how he frames history for its consumption.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's also worth noting that the most recent of his books on the Rothschilds came out in 1999, while he began his career as an historian in 1987, meaning that less time passed from the start of his academic career to the publication of those works than has passed between the publication of those works and the present. So however substantial his research may have been, he has since spent what has turned out to be the majority of his career with his thumb up his arse.
I am proud of starting so intelligent discussion 
(although personally I never really wrote anything - throwing term 'Eurocentrism' was enough 
)
by the way, if anyone here is hater of eurocentrism (or defender wondering if there are any great people outside from Europe
) - check my mods http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13078282#post13078282
(although personally I never really wrote anything - throwing term 'Eurocentrism' was enough )by the way, if anyone here is hater of eurocentrism (or defender wondering if there are any great people outside from Europe
) - check my mods http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13078282#post13078282
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Yes - but history does not start at 1700.
Nor is history only about wars, colonialism and industrialization.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Indeed, much of the innovation in Iron Age metallurgic technology appears to originate in east-central Europe--unimaginably more important for European history than particular political events.
Gen.Mannerheim
Grand Moff
That are proper pieces of archival research... done by a dedicated team of underpaid grad students. One of my professors has just about zero respect for Ferguson. He told us a story where he worked together on a panel with him some years back, and while granted EVERY prof uses grad slave labor, evidently Ferguson doesn't do anything except present stuff his team has done, not even proof read himself.
I am proud of starting so intelligent discussion
by the way, if anyone here is hater of eurocentrism (or defender wondering if there are any great people outside from Europe
Hey now, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of ole fashioned Eurocentrism! Like any proper spice, a little dab will do ya.
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
The most interesting events of history, IMO, often coincide with the scale of the visible impact, drama, and shock value.
If Europeans were fighting with wooden sticks and then Poland suddenly conquers everyone and their grandmothers with its novel invention of iron metallurgy, then I am pretty sure there will be more interest in Eastern Europe.
Similar threads
