This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don’t get the vibe that many historians are simply failed fame diggers. And even if some secretly harbored envy for the notoriety of someone like Duncan, they’ve given intellectual reasons and made the case for why his work is not historically reliable. And I’ve read enough about the period to detect when Duncan is simply repeating the classics and isn’t aware of critical scholarship surrounding the reliability of the conclusions he draws. So in that sense whatever historians feel about him is still irrelevant to the merits of the case they make. “They just hate us cause they anus,” is a personal judgment, not a scholarly conclusion.
People have said the same about Carlin. And that’s why Carlin calls himself a “fan” of history and is careful not to make himself out to be a historian. He’s fully aware that he’s doing much the same thing Duncan is, whenever he’s doing a podcast.
Yeah, I see the criticisms of Carlin and Duncan that they simply repeat what the ancient sources say, and they're not wrong necessarily. But then you look at their own work and it's... not better. I'd rather read someone uncritically relaying the biases of ancient Romans than someone uncritically relaying the biases of some German socialist. Most academic history of ancient Rome, especially anything touching on the Republic, is so fundamentally tainted with marxist historiography as to be almost unreadable in my opinion.
If all they led with was simply telling the story of the Romans as the ancient sources say, I think historians wouldn’t have an issue with that. That’s different from a historical portrait of the period. Ancient sources are still of supreme importance in telling that account, except in the obvious and numerous cases where history departs from them. And that’s where historiography begins.
I have no idea what this even means. This just seems like some right-wing slur or glib remark. If you’re referring to the reality that modern historiography commits itself to ‘something’ like the materialist conception of history, then you’re right; only in the sense that material realities play a significant if not dominant role in the development of historical events. That’s uncontroversial except for the fact that you used the word “tainted.”
Modern cultural anthropology is the only discipline I’m aware of that maintains explicit links to Marxist historiography. And there’s good reason for doing that, though it’s been recognized to have problems.
More options
Context Copy link
History podcasting has also evolved a ton since the Carlin/Duncan days. It's sort of split off into two directions - one, exemplified by The Cost of Glory, is being upfront about being a retelling and explanation of the ancient sources. Cost of Glory is as much about Plutarch as it is about the characters, and I think it's a better podcast for it (it's my favourite of the current crop. Listen in the gym and hit PRs). Then, there are podcasts like History of Byzantium, History of the Germans, and above all When Diplomacy Fails, which blend narrative history with an overview of the historiographical debates and a proper examination of the sources.
More options
Context Copy link
Accidental double-post
My bad. I'm in a hotel on bad wifi.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link