Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In Carlin's defence, I don't think that he's ever claimed to be an "historian"? If anything, he seems to be almost defensively insistent about the fact he's just an enthusiast.
Dan Carlin Hardcore History Podcast
- Thread starter Cryptic_Snow
- Start date
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Oh, so you mean schools of historical study that differ from your opinion of how it should be. There are many ways of studying and analyzing history, not just Great Man Theory and America Deserves All It Can Grab. Social history is just as important as how the few "great" men shaped history. Also, history is one of the fields where being Marxian doesn't imply that you're a communist.
The only way this could be construed as "liberal guilt tripping" is if you really don't think that anyone but these "great men" had any hand is shaping history at all, and you see the flow of history as being something inevitable but for the intervention of People Who Dare. And if you do think that, sit back and enjoy this forum tearing you to shreds.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I should have said "can take."
Cryptic_Snow
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 435
The introduction is pretty long, but his podcast is like a book. It gets better the deeper you go.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Great Men narratives are liberal guilt trips that deviate from the standard Great Family narratives.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
I thought it was Space Lizards.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Well yeah, and climate is controlled by the Satirists. Great Family theory wins again.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
The Great Motor of History is an Actual Motor resting just beneath the European tectonic plate. Every once in awhile it spits out domesticated wheat, or a steel sword, or a microbe, or plans for a fully-developed republic. This is truly how Europe has been ever dominant over the world.
CYSQUATCH9
Chieftain
Pop history or not, I think we all could agree that the substance is legitimate. Given that the majority of people in this world(especially 'MERICA) know nothing of history, I feel like HH is an excellent source of casual learning. It is also very apropos for this community. Alot of gamers become enamored with history after discovering CIV. What better way to keep them going down the rabbit hole than "POP HISTORY"------whatever that means.
That is precisely what we disagree on.
CYSQUATCH9
Chieftain
I love a good contrarian<333333333
Surely as a history lover, you could appreciate this. You stated before that you only got through the beginnings of the Roman episodes, which was replete with revisionist history and competing claims. oh well. To each his own
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
I love a good contrarian<333333333
Surely as a history lover, you could appreciate this. You stated before that you only got through the beginnings of the Roman episodes, which was replete with revisionist history and competing claims. oh well. To each his own
What is "revisionist" history? Do you just mean history? Or are you one of them "liberal guilt-trip" guys à la Glassfan?
CYSQUATCH9
Chieftain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_history
For instance, and Carlin talks about this in his Mongols series, some modern historians have credited the Mongolians for opening up trade between the east and west, slowing the Caliphate, changing the balance of military power in the crusades, etc.. As if at the times, these could be intended positive or negative outcomes. These unintended consequences can only be considered beneficial now that we revision them. We do this and forget the 10's of millions of deaths and the fact that the Mongolians didnt intend any of this.
http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644
To the point of what my new mancrush DACHS brought up, I would guess that he had problems with Dans portrayal of the gracchi brothers. Or maybe his lack of contribution to the punic wars. Clearly DACHS knows his stuff, I think its just a bit of Ivory tower analysis tbqh.
Definitely not a liberal guilt tripper. More of a coureur des bois from Arkansas
For instance, and Carlin talks about this in his Mongols series, some modern historians have credited the Mongolians for opening up trade between the east and west, slowing the Caliphate, changing the balance of military power in the crusades, etc.. As if at the times, these could be intended positive or negative outcomes. These unintended consequences can only be considered beneficial now that we revision them. We do this and forget the 10's of millions of deaths and the fact that the Mongolians didnt intend any of this.
http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644
To the point of what my new mancrush DACHS brought up, I would guess that he had problems with Dans portrayal of the gracchi brothers. Or maybe his lack of contribution to the punic wars. Clearly DACHS knows his stuff, I think its just a bit of Ivory tower analysis tbqh.
Definitely not a liberal guilt tripper. More of a coureur des bois from Arkansas
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
That's not "revisionist" history, that's just history. History is about analysis and interpretation. It changes as new theories arise and old bad ones are discarded. The word you're actually looking for is historiography, which is the study of how history (that is, the interpretation of historical events) changes over time. This shouldn't be seen as a bad thing.
CYSQUATCH9
Chieftain
I didnt say it was bad. Since he responded to me about its legitimacy, I interpreted it as a shot at Carlins "version", or what he chooses to cover, which is self-admittedly replete with revisionist history.
Actually, I think my usage of revisionist history is pretty spot on. You telling me what word I am looking for is unnecessary and incorrect imho. I understand Historiography to be the studying of how you reach the interpretation, not the interpretation itself.
Actually, I think my usage of revisionist history is pretty spot on. You telling me what word I am looking for is unnecessary and incorrect imho. I understand Historiography to be the studying of how you reach the interpretation, not the interpretation itself.
Historiography is the methodology of history. Revisionism is merely the act of re-interpreting an historical event, despite having no new evidence. The term is usually used pejoratively - Holocaust-deniers are referred to as "revisionists" - but need not be. It's also a term that seldom makes sense, seeing as how most historical revisions these days are due to new evidence. There are occasions, however, when revisionism serves a very good purpose. CFC's good friend, Guy Halsall, is a revisionist historian.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What is Cysquatch actually arguing, here?
CYSQUATCH9
Chieftain
Oh sorry, I originally wanted to present the case to HH being a valuable presentation for history. Mostly for the novice/beginner. Then I was questioned on "legitimacy" and "revisionist history". So it got off track, like most internetz do.
I am arguing that HH is a great media for history and I enjoy the presentation. If you guys dont, thats cool. But disagreeing with me via semantic games is kinda ridiculous. I would like to hear what DACHS found illegitimate.
I am arguing that HH is a great media for history and I enjoy the presentation. If you guys dont, thats cool. But disagreeing with me via semantic games is kinda ridiculous. I would like to hear what DACHS found illegitimate.
Similar threads
