Pet History Peeves

[Lone Wolf]

This is a thread for your pet peeves in historical analysis misconceptions, preferrably with examples.

1) Nazi Germany being portrayed as "anti-Western", and Nazism/Fascism being described as an "anti-Western ideology". Stems from confusing "Western" with "modern liberal-democratic", ignores "Western" predecessors of Nazi racial concepts and "Europeanist" rhetoric that accompanied the war on the Eastern Front. This is an example of a book that makes such a mistake.

2) Using the words "colonialism", "conquest" and "occupation" to mean the same thing. Usually a leftist sin (complaints about "occupy Wall Street" slogan being inherently colonialist), sometimes a rightist one (complaints about the Caliphate "colonialism" in conquering the Levant and North Africa/Ottoman "colonialism" in conquering the Balkans, usually in response to leftists detailing the atrocities of actual European colonialism).

3) Nicholas II Romanov being portrayed as a personally decent man (a common platitude). He wasn't. He, however, was weak-willed, and that's a character quality that from a distance often seems like kindness and decency.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Lotta little things.

Elizabeth I being considered a "good queen" is a big one.

Misconceptions about the nature of silver/spice trade in the 16th/17th centuries.

Misconceptions about Ming external relations, particularly interest in trade.

Bad WWI generalizations annoy the hell out of me, but I usually defer to Dachs on those matters.

"Civilization" discussions. I really don't like that word (irony totally comprehended). Bad linguistics janx.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Misconceptions about the nature of silver/spice trade in the 16th/17th centuries.

What are these?

 

[Phrossack]

Claims that:

-the Magna Carta was the foundation of the US Constitution and was meant to give all the English people FREEEEEEEDOMMMMMM.
-the Mongols were successful due to overwhelming numbers.
-pre-Roman conquest Celtic and Germanic peoples were primitive and savage.
-the longbow was an armor-piercing machine gun that won Agincourt, Crecy, etc.
-mail armor was easily pierced and uncomfortably loose.
-plate armor was ridiculously heavy, hot, and inflexible to the point that anyone dumb enough to wear it would be unable to run, breathe, or get up from a fall, and that it was easily penetrated anyway.
-the Crusades (northern and Levantine) were clear-cut Christian vs. pagan/Muslim holy wars at all times.
-the Civil War was not about slavery.
-all pre-Christian Norsemen were bloodthirsty Vikings with horned helmets.
-the battles of Tours, Malta, Vienna, and Lepanto prevented Muslim hordes from overrunning otherwise-defenseless Europe.
-all of "Western civilization" is based on a mishmash of Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian ideas and that these peoples first invented or thought of EVERYTHING.
-Extension of the above: that the Middle Ages were a great leap back in every way for Europe and that nothing important was invented or thought of at the time.

 

[Dachs]

This list could get really really really long. I'll try to keep it reasonably short.

1. The Sonderweg, the historiographical construct that suggests that German history took a 'special path' from Arminius through Luther and Bismarck to Hitler that made the country necessarily, intrinsically, and unusually militaristic, authoritarian, antisemitic, and the like, until the victorious Allies 'saved' German society in 1945. Has a lot of offshoots and related peeves, e.g. the claim that Germany alone "started" the First World War and was guilty of the worst conduct during said war, or the claim that the Weimar democracy was doomed to fail from its inception. Probably the biggest reason I find it so repulsive, other than the fact that it is factually wrong, is that it suggests that the awful things about the Hitlerite regime were peculiar to Germany: a reassuring pat on the back, because if they were peculiar to Germany, they couldn't happen here (wherever "here" is).

2. The persistent belief that the Western Roman Empire was destroyed by the "barbarians". These "barbarian" groups were symptoms, not the cause, of the civil wars that destroyed the Western Empire, and lacked the military power to seriously contend with the might of Rome. There are related pet peeves to this one, too, such as the claim that all of these groups can be referred to as "peoples" or "tribes", or the claim that the Empire was economically, socially, or militarily flawed in very serious, deep ways before it supposedly was faced with a massive external assault with which it therefore could not deal.

3. Pretty much anything positive said about Napoleon Bonaparte, ever. The man was a blight on the face of the planet and one of the worst villains to rule a state in the history of the world, a true precursor to Hitler (missing only the genocide, depending on how you feel about the Peninsular War). This also goes for his American imitator, Andrew Jackson, although in most ways Bonaparte was a few orders of magnitude worse than Jackson.

4. The morally disgusting attempts to paint Japan as a victim of American aggression in December 1941. I don't even believe this deserves serious comment. Let's just move on.

5. The Confederate Lost Cause. Listing everything wrong with this would take...an awful lot of space.

6. Any argument to the effect that Michael Jordan was not the greatest player in the history of the NBA.

7. The introduction of the stirrup to European societies was a world-historical event that completely changed the way militaries and cavalry in particular worked.

2) Using the words "colonialism", "conquest" and "occupation" to mean the same thing. Usually a leftist sin (complaints about "occupy Wall Street" slogan being inherently colonialist), sometimes a rightist one (complaints about the Caliphate "colonialism" in conquering the Levant and North Africa/Ottoman "colonialism" in conquering the Balkans, usually in response to leftists detailing the atrocities of actual European colonialism).

Napoleon's relationship with much of Europe was one of "colonialism", "conquest", and "occupation", all at the same time.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The Sonderweg, the historiographical construct that suggests that German history took a 'special path' from Arminius through Luther and Bismarck to Hitler that made the country necessarily, intrinsically, and unusually militaristic, authoritarian, antisemitic, and the like, until the victorious Allies 'saved' German society in 1945.

It's often compared to Russian "Osobyi put'/Special way". Just like the Sonderweg is actually a German invention, Russian "Special way" is a Russian one.

 

[Joecoolyo]

-all of "Western civilization" is based on a mishmash of Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian ideas and that these peoples first invented or thought of EVERYTHING.

This one annoys me as well, always Greeks invented all of this, and the Romans did all of that, blech.

-Extension of the above: that the Middle Ages were a great leap back in every way for Europe and that nothing important was invented or thought of at the time.

I actually just finished writing an entire essay on this topic, was quite fun to say the least!

 

[Dachs]

It's often compared to Russian "Osobyi put'/Special way". Just like the Sonderweg is actually a German invention, Russian "Special way" is a Russian one.

Just so. The Prussians liked to say that Germany had followed a 'special path' to greatness by incorporating the best elements of the West - economic dynamism, elements of representation, technological prowess - with the best elements of the East - supposedly a 'guiding royal hand' or some such tripe. Prussia-Germany was supposedly halfway between the militarism of France and the pacifism indolence of Russia. Only after the Second World War was this narrative seized on in a different way, for the obvious reason.

 

[Phrossack]

2. The persistent belief that the Western Roman Empire was destroyed by the "barbarians". These "barbarian" groups were symptoms, not the cause, of the civil wars that destroyed the Western Empire, and lacked the military power to seriously contend with the might of Rome. There are related pet peeves to this one, too, such as the claim that all of these groups can be referred to as "peoples" or "tribes", or the claim that the Empire was economically, socially, or militarily flawed in very serious, deep ways before it supposedly was faced with a massive external assault with which it therefore could not deal.

7. The introduction of the stirrup to European societies was a world-historical event that completely changed the way militaries and cavalry in particular worked.

Dang, I missed these two.

This one annoys me as well, always Greeks invented all of this, and the Romans did all of that, blech.

Exactly! I hate hearing how the Greeks spontaneously and singlehandedly invented all philosophy, that all these often absurd philosophical beliefs are true at the same time and that they alone are behind all Western thought and by extension all thought worth noticing, and that the Athenians's invention of democracy was the sole and direct ancestor of all democracies EVARRR, while the Spartans were the best warriors in history and never mind their insanely evil society.

I actually just finished writing an entire essay on this topic, was quite fun to say the least!

It is, isn't it? I grant that cities shrank, vast public buildings were no longer really constructed, and that medieval philosophy is less interesting and relevant than its predecessors. However, the shrinking of cities and general lack of huge and fancy buildings are not necessarily bad things, and an awful lot of new technologies were invented. Plus, medieval political and legal institutions still have some effect to this day, so it's silly to treat the Middle Ages like flyover country where nothing relevant or significant ever happened.

But I'll shut up about this now because I don't want to derail this thread with a debate about medieval vs. classical times or whatever.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Exactly! I hate hearing how the Greeks spontaneously and singlehandedly invented all philosophy, that all these often absurd philosophical beliefs are true at the same time and that they alone are behind all Western thought and by extension all thought worth noticing, and that the Athenians's invention of democracy was the sole and direct ancestor of all democracies EVARRR, while the Spartans were the best warriors in history and never mind their insanely evil society.

You've read my mind

It is, isn't it? I grant that cities shrank, vast public buildings were no longer really constructed, and that medieval philosophy is less interesting and relevant than its predecessors. However, the shrinking of cities and general lack of huge and fancy buildings are not necessarily bad things, and an awful lot of new technologies were invented. Plus, medieval political and legal institutions still have some effect to this day, so it's silly to treat the Middle Ages like flyover country where nothing relevant or significant ever happened.

But I'll shut up about this now because I don't want to derail this thread with a debate about medieval vs. classical times or whatever.

It was a time of decentralization, localization, and "weaker institutions", but as you said, those aren't necessarily Bad Things; and its not like everything just stopped and went in "reverse" during the period (or whatever people view it as).

And its not that much of a derailment, this is less classical vs medieval than just being annoyed at the popular portrayal of both the "Dark Ages" and the "medieval era", which is totally in line with this thread!

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Many people have already taken mine so here are a couple of others.

1) Using Nazism and Fascism as synonyms, please stop internet you're making my head hurt.

2)The amount of neglect the Ionian Revolt receives. It was kinda sorta an important event in ancient history that's completely glossed over, even in graduate classes.

3) The recurring myth that the U.S. was some major villain in the Mexican-American War who bullied their poor defenseless southern neighbor into a war that they didn't want and that the couldn't win (wrong on all accounts). Also the idea that the war was started on a lie, if anything Polk was a master at calling out his adversaries moves.

4) This belief in both academia and popular knowledge that the Hundred Years War was somehow different and special from Anglo-French relations/conflict throughout the entire damn Medieval period. They don't even talk about the best part, the War of the Two Peters!

5) Whenever a British person starts talking about Montgomery.

6) Anytime somebody says good things about de Gaulle (luckily this one's pretty rare)

7) Pronouncing the ye in ye olde ... as YEE instead of THE, seriously people learn your Thorn!

5. The Confederate Lost Cause. Listing everything wrong with this would take...an awful lot of space.

I see no problem with the Glorious Lost Cause. Whats wrong with the idea that Southern states, completely in the right BTW, seceded from the Union to protect their States Rights, yet no matter how superior the Southern fighting man was, which he was mind you, his struggle was inevitably doomed do to superior Yankee manpower and industry. I think its pretty well known that generals such as Albert Sidney Johnston and P. G. T. Beauregard where shining examples not only of cultured gentlemen but also tactical geniuses, the likes of whom uncivilized Northern scum like Grant and that other guy who might have done something in Georgia (I don't remember) couldn't compare. I mean seriously if Longstreet had of just done what he was told in a professional manner on days 2 & 3 of Gettysburg, or if Lee had have gone around Little Roundtop, the South would have been free!

But seriously y'all cheated.

 

[schlaufuchs]

5) Whenever a British person starts talking about Montgomery.

Ditto for Churchill. This also applies to most Americans.

 

[Lord Baal]

3. Pretty much anything positive said about Napoleon Bonaparte, ever. The man was a blight on the face of the planet and one of the worst villains to rule a state in the history of the world, a true precursor to Hitler (missing only the genocide, depending on how you feel about the Peninsular War). This also goes for his American imitator, Andrew Jackson, although in most ways Bonaparte was a few orders of magnitude worse than Jackson.

Now, now, Dachs, Napoleon wasn't all bad. He was a damn fine general, for one thing. Also, he set up a pretty decent hegemony, though he also pissed it away.

Other than that, you kind of stole everything I would have said. I despise Douglas MacArthur, so anything positive that someone says about him makes me angry.

6) Anytime somebody says good things about de Gaulle (luckily this one's pretty rare)

We're going to have to fight.

 

[Yeekim]

3) Nicholas II Romanov being portrayed as a personally decent man (a common platitude). He wasn't. He, however, was weak-willed, and that's a character quality that from a distance often seems like kindness and decency.

I seem to have fallen victim to that one. So what was undecent about him?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Pretty much any debate that even tangentially touches on the American Civil War. The subject is fascinating and certainly worthy of discussion but on this site (at least) as soon as the subject comes up stupid people rush in to white knight the confederacy. Yes, I truly think you are a stupid person if you're going to waste massive amounts of time trying to justify succession on any grounds other than slavery, or say the North was worse than the South in any way or say that Jonny Reb was 'fighting to save his home throughout the whole war'. Facts be damned, people are going to repeat the same tired, ******ed and well-rebuked arguments over and over and I'm just fed up with the entire subject.


My only other pet peeves with respect to history are terribad posters who proclaim themselves as experts in all things history. For some reason those people are worse than terribad posters who proclaim themselves experts in all other fields and I don't know why.

 

[Ajidica]

1. People saying the Holocaust and 1930's Soviet Agriculture policies are morally equal.
1a. People who think the entirety of the Soviet Union, including the USSR under Kruschev, was like 1984.
2. America overthrew Mossadeq. (Nevermind the British role and the fact Mossadeq had already annoyed everyone in Iran.)
3. People who think the Magna Carta was some sort of grand outflowing of democracy and FREEDOM! (Ignoring that it was forgotten about and had to be dug out of the archives when some Parliamentarians realized it made a handy piece of propaganda.)
4. Pretending medieval 'states' have any meaningful relation to modern states when talking about politics. (Worst offender is the 100 Years War.)
5. Rome fell to barbarians. (We have to give the Romans credit, their civil wars did a really good job in bringing about the collapse of the empire.)
6. Putting historical figures on pedestals.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Any statements about universality or timelessness of any idea. In particular, attempts to superimpose modern-day ideals on ancient characters. Spartacus' slave revolt was about ending slavery, the Magna Carta was about creating liberal democracy, the Spartans were communists, Assyrian mass production of olive oil, or the Greek art trade, was capitalism (or really any attempt to portray capitalism as simply "exchanges that happen in a market"), Cromwell was the first Fascist...

Also, all the stuff about Islam being the natural enemy of science, and all of the myths surrounding their supposed destruction of the Great Library, abhorrence of scholars or destruction of non-Quranic texts, and such. People don't realize that nearly all of our knowledge of the ancient philosophers and writers (particularly Greek ones) comes from Arabic transcriptions of those texts, for example, to say nothing of their contribution to math, biology, chemistry, astronomy (2/3 of the stars in the sky have Arabic names), and medicine.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Oh. The myths metric crapton of myths surrounding Galileo - that he was some sort of intrepid unrecognized genius bastion of the scientific method fighting singlehandedly against a repressive, anti-intellectual, antilogical Catholic Church.

Frankly it's irritating that popular culture has stopped fellating Christopher Columbus for basically the same reason but any time a debate about evolution or intelligent design, or the big bang, or science/religion's role in education pops up this asshat's name invariably follows.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Oh. The myths metric crapton of myths surrounding Galileo - that he was some sort of intrepid unrecognized genius bastion of the scientific method fighting singlehandedly against a repressive, anti-intellectual, antilogical Catholic Church.

Frankly it's irritating that popular culture has stopped fellating Christopher Columbus for basically the same reason but any time a debate about evolution or intelligent design, or the big bang, or science/religion's role in education pops up this asshat's name invariably follows.

But! But! But! He instituted a paradigm shift that laid the entire foundations of modern European intellectualism by himself! And helped bring us out of the superstitious dark ages, and the religiosity of the medieval era!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And the mystery of Galileo's middle name comes to light!

Zheng He