SH Archive Ask Pro | - Questions for History Professionals

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-03-06 18:34:09
Reaction Score: 5

Yes, we know women and people of colour existed in the medieval period. The world didn’t consist solely of white men until the 15th or 16th century. I wouldn’t have thought that is too surprising.

I did say a British medieval context.

Medieval is a rough periodisation of the time between the end of the classical period in the fifth century and the beginning of the early-modern period in the 15th century. It applies to Europe, and parts of north Africa and western Asia.

Yes, I understand what is commonly meant by the term. But I don't accept how we know that that time is as portrayed. If you stick around on this site, you will probably bump into alternative timelines and missing 1000s of years. Say between the 5-15th century.

So, before you can begin your research you need some way of deciding where to start looking at evidence. For instance, I just glanced back through a few of your recent posts and noticed you said you have looked into the history of the Parthenon (Acropolis aka Necropolis, Schliemann and 1877 Cremation Temple). Why?

Absolutely. Like you I have been through the educational system. It was the trellis on which I grew. However, I now find that the only meaningful way to evaluate evidence, is via personal verification. I try to apply the scientific method to what I do/look into etc. For me, to accept any of the narratives that are given is to assume too much. Embedded in those narratives are so many structures that frame our experience, that we are unable even conceive of an alternative, yet equally plausible point of view. Eg we all assume that space and planets etc exist - but we have very little personal evidence of them. So, given that I am a skeptic, and hold to a process of personal verification to establish something meaningful. I can't get to the bottom of everything that way, but it does give an insight into all the assumptions that others are prepared to make.

I’m sorry to be abrupt again, but have you read Tin’s work? If not how can you decide whether it helps our understanding of the past? On what do you base that assumption?

I haven't read it. But I didn't dismiss his work.

Naturally my perspective is not unbiased, as you say yourself everybody is biased. However, what I have worked on consistently over the last decade, and indeed what my training as a historian has taught me to do, is to be aware of my biases and to try and keep them out of my research.

Yes. Are you aware that the BBC is also proud of its lack of bias? To me that seems laughable. Generally TPTB (the powers that be) have framed acceptable discussion within an Overton window. That window only allows those inside to see limited information. But there are other valid points of view!

I absolutely respect your desire to get to an underlying truth, that is, in a sense, what we are all trying to get to. But I’m sure you see that the second you try understand any evidence of that truth, you too are interpreting, and the second you start telling a friend about it or posting about it here, you start constructing a narrative. Multiple narratives and interpretations are just different ways of looking at the same evidence.

I accept that we all are trying to do that too, to a greater or lesser extent. Still, I think the evidence should lead to the theory, rather than the theory (or questions) to the evidence. That at least would be the ideal, to me. Agnostic, until the evidence such as you have is coherent enough that the conclusion is rational and reasonable enough to be followed by anyone. Or not. In fact, I think most times we will look at the past and find it cannot tell us anything useful.

However, I think historians are mostly in the business of presenting narratives, rather than the argument and allowing us to make up our own minds. In fact I suspect that that is the point! What is taught at schools is presented as a fait accompli, ie there is no doubt about such and such a fact. There are no questions, nothing to see. But I think all we have are questions. As part of the historical establishment, my issue is that you present narratives as true, when they are really opinion pieces. And within the context of education, perhaps this derails many minds into believe they "know", rather than seeking. Still there is an argument for it - maybe they are happier that way!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-03-06 18:52:15
Reaction Score: 1

However, I think historians are mostly in the business of presenting narratives, rather than the argument and allowing us to make up our own minds.

It's really hard to perceive without a narrative lens. More than that, it's really hard to "advance" in any field without keeping certain things as fundamental building blocks. I think what this site has shown is that a lot of those blocks aren't as solid as conventional wisdom would guess. Tearing everything down is not practical to anyone that considers themselves a "professional" in any field, which is why "progress" is generally slow and only at the margins.

But that's all just generalities. Specifically, what I would like @Oisín to address is how reasonable it is that Domenico Fontana's Water Conduit was constructed at street level in Pompeii in the late 16th century and then reburied.

• 79 A.D. no more: Pompeii got buried in 1631
• Pompeiigate Scandal: Chronology Issues

Appreciate your willingness to explore these questions, Oisin!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starmonkey
Date: 2020-03-06 19:02:14
Reaction Score: 0

I'd ask for someone gifted in encryption or code breaking.
I think we have too many on the other sides of the scales. Need more detectives.
Sherlock or Bruce Wayne. A "mind palace" might be a worthwhile attribute.
Instead of hit record and start vomiting.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Oisín
Date: 2020-03-06 19:32:30
Reaction Score: 1

If it's not too surprising and if you don't mind me asking, what kind of evidence do you have for this? Is it a primary source?

I'm genuinely baffled by this question. Are you saying there might not have been women or people of colour in the medieval period? Like, white men reproduced asexually for a thousand years and then in the 15th century everyone else arrived? I feel like I am misunderstanding your question, apologies if so.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starmonkey
Date: 2020-03-06 20:00:28
Reaction Score: 1

As far as I've come to understand and accept, there are no credible primary sources.
ILLUMINATION.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: NovaFeedback
Date: 2020-03-06 20:01:27
Reaction Score: 1

I'm no moderator, but can we go back to the original questions? All this is 100% diversion from what we should be discussing.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starmonkey
Date: 2020-03-06 20:30:14
Reaction Score: 0

Those individual questions all have designated threads and should probably be answered therein. Just a suggestion.
This seems a more general blurb

 

[Worsaae]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Worsaae
Date: 2020-03-06 20:38:52
Reaction Score: 0

I'm genuinely baffled by this question. Are you saying there might not have been women or people of colour in the medieval period? Like, white men reproduced asexually for a thousand years and then in the 15th century everyone else arrived? I feel like I am misunderstanding your question, apologies if so.

Yes, it's a basic question. If you are familiar with irish history, then you could provide satisfying evidence from irish history. Is the evidence primary? When is it from? Is it a copy or original?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Son of a Bor
Date: 2020-03-07 02:06:35
Reaction Score: 6

I would ask a professional historian this question (of course, I was a version of a professional historian once, as a cultural anthropologist), and if I had been exposed to this forum and the line of thought herein I would have had the same question then. I digress...

In any case, I speak with some old friends in academia. People who are very, very highly ranked. How did I keep these friendships? I don't give up on people very easily. And they know I'm serious if a sometimes vicious (sorry everyone) eccentric. I digress...

The question: Who built the cathedrals?

The answer comes back, something like this: Oh those craftsmen were amazing. The way they buttressed the arches, etc.

And I think: My friends are really disconnected-- tragically, from reality. They valorize workers like a good old "orientalist" professor writes about exotic cultures. Except that is kind of illegal nowadays (although it has been reborn as the vacuous but politically potent valorization of "identities'). But to romanticize heroic medievals, well, that is OK. Because these people, my highly ranked old friends who break my heart with their dull acceptance standard explanations (even when they criticize them), don't really know any workers. They don't know what is really possible under the technologies they imagined were in place in, say, 1200 AD. I have fantasies of taking them to the truck stop on the outskirt of town...

Instead, they tell me the Blackfeet didn't have horses in 1700. They tell me that slaves built the pyramids...

It is sad. They will probably die without ever knowing real truth. One told me that if mudfloods were true, and I showed him dozen of photos, there should be an investigation. After 9/11, I suppose, someday in a better world.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-03-07 07:24:58
Reaction Score: 1

They will probably die without ever knowing real truth.

As will we all, I think.

I would express it as, they will die believing they 'know' the truth, while actually holding to a position that a reasonable, logical thinker would dismiss.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Oisín
Date: 2020-03-07 08:44:44
Reaction Score: 3

Yes, it's a basic question. If you are familiar with irish history, then you could provide satisfying evidence from irish history. Is the evidence primary? When is it from? Is it a copy or original?

I can't help feeling that you are intentionally wasting both your time and mine with this. But I will give you one piece of documentary evidence for each just to humour you:

Evidence that women existed
The Book of Ballymote was written around 1390. The book was commissioned by the McDonagh family, who owned it until the 16th century, when it was sold to the O'Donnells. After the Flight of the Earls in the 17th century it passed to the library of Trinity College Dublin. In the 18th century it was transferred to the collection of the Royal Irish Academy where it has remained. There is a lot of extant documentary evidence to attest to its continued existence. Its call number is MS23 P12, for anyone who wants to go and see it. The book is a collection of stories, poetry, rules for writing and grammar, and genealogies of prominent clans. Unsurprisingly, there are numerous contemporary and historical references to women throughout the book.

Evidence that people of colour existed in Europe
Robert de Clari's account of the fourth crusade The Conquest of Constantinople describes a community of black people living in Constantinople. That was written around 1215. The oldest existing manuscript is a copy made in 1300 in the Monastery at Corbie. The manuscript remained at Corbie until the 17th century when it passed into the hands of the French scholar Paul Pétau. From Pétau it went to the Danish scholar Petrus Scavenius, who left it to the King of Denmark in 1664. It has remained in the Royal Library at Copenhagen ever since (call number: MS 487).

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2020-03-07 09:31:22
Reaction Score: 3

Evidence that women existed
The Book of Ballymote was written around 1390. The book was commissioned by the McDonagh family, who owned it until the 16th century, when it was sold to the O'Donnells. After the Flight of the Earls in the 17th century it passed to the library of Trinity College Dublin. In the 18th century it was transferred to the collection of the Royal Irish Academy where it has remained. There is a lot of extant documentary evidence to attest to its continued existence. Its call number is MS23 P12, for anyone who wants to go and see it. The book is a collection of stories, poetry, rules for writing and grammar, and genealogies of prominent clans. Unsurprisingly, there are numerous contemporary and historical references to women throughout the book.

I do not doubt the existence of women, but I do want to understand the sources of the information provided. Google Ngram has it first mentioned in this 1724 publication.

All it says in there is this:

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of its history. From Wiki: The first page of the work contains a drawing of Noah's Ark as conceived by the scribe.

According to the provided description, this here is Noah's Ark. Which Noah is it, and when did he live? For right now we 3 to choose from, but are they one and the same? Naturally should be the #1 one, but do we really know?

• #1 Pre-flood patriarch Noah
• #2 According to the Book of Mormon, King Noah was a wicked monarch best known for burning the prophet Abinadi at the stake.
• #3 And this Noah: 1516: Noah in Tartary

???: Why would Manus O'Duignan, Solomon O'Droma, and Robert McSheedy present a non-king antediluvian Noah with a crown on his head? Did they think he was a king?

The references provided in the Wikipedia are dated with 1989, 1998 and 1981. For a book that old these references are not sufficient enough to verify anything.

• * Created: 1390-91 at the castle of Ballymote for Tonnaltagh McDonagh
• * For over a hundred years it was a treasured possession of the McDonaghs of Corran.
• * About the beginning of the 16th century, it fell into the possession of the O'Donnells with whom it remained until 1603.
• * From 1620 until 1767 it was in the library of Trinity College, Dublin.
• It disappeared from the library and was later found in Burgundy, France.
• In 1785 it was returned to the Royal Irish Academy where it remained as one of the Academy's most treasured possessions.
• The work was photographed by the Academy in 1887 and two hundred copies of it were made.
• One copy is in the diocesan archives and others in libraries.

KD: What I would like to know is where this books history between 1391 and 1724 can be verified? What sources from 1390-1724 establish its history?

• Additionally, the book was lost between 1767 and 1785. That is 18 years.
• How do we know that the book lost in 1767 was the same book recovered in 1785?

 

[Felix Noille]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Felixnoille
Date: 2020-03-07 09:41:55
Reaction Score: 1

Sorry, Felixnoille. I wasn't very clear in that bit. Tin is not saying that men and women didn't have sex. His argument is that men's primary emotional bonds were non-sexual relationships with other men (these are called homosocial relationships), while marriages and other sexual relationships were based on various material and power exchanges. He goes on to argue that the idea that heterosexual love should be a man's primary emotional bond is a relatively new idea.

I see, thank you for the clarification. It seems to me that this theory would be very easy to find evidence for, but that wouldn't make it a fact or 'the truth'. Equally it might be theorised that the human race didn't develop genitalia until the 1920s and you would find supporting evidence. However, these days a theory is considered to be a fact that you weren't there to witness:

"'If it’s called a theory, it’s the same as a hunch': That’s true sometimes, when you’re just beginning to look into a phenomenon. But after a while, the word merely means that you didn’t actually see the event play out—even if all the evidence tells you what happened. The theory of evolution? A fact. The Big Bang theory? A fact. But unless you’re 13.8 billion years old, you weren’t here to witness it all." Jeffrey Kluger March 7, 2014 Editor, Time Magazine.

Unfortunately this attitude has now infected the entire 'scientific' community and has resulted in the fictional reality within which we now find ourselves.

I'd really like to know who is funding this research into Tin's theory...

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2020-03-07 09:50:33
Reaction Score: 2

I do believe that people of color existed all over the place and much earlier than that, but I doubt the authenticity of this source.

Evidence that people of colour existed in Europe
Robert de Clari's account of the fourth crusade The Conquest of Constantinople describes a community of black people living in Constantinople. That was written around 1215. The oldest existing manuscript is a copy made in 1300 in the Monastery at Corbie. The manuscript remained at Corbie until the 17th century when it passed into the hands of the French scholar Paul Pétau. From Pétau it went to the Danish scholar Petrus Scavenius, who left it to the King of Denmark in 1664. It has remained in the Royal Library at Copenhagen ever since (call number: MS 487).

Do we have any sources to cross reference the history of this non-existent manuscript?

• Created: c.1215
• Copy was made in 1300 and stayed at the Corbie Monastery until the 17th century
• In early 1600s said copy was acquired by Paul Pétau (1568-1614)
  • Paul Pétau was a French publisher and book collector.

I have very little doubt that Paul Petau had this manuscript in his possession in 17th century. But...

• Original manuscript is where? Lost...? Not again.
• What 1215 - c.1614 sources establish 400 years of this manuscript's history.

Personally, without any additional cross-reference data, I'd say that publisher Paul Pétau published a manuscript. I think Petau’s copy could the actual original created to substantiate the New History. Imho that is.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Oisín
Date: 2020-03-07 09:56:31
Reaction Score: 2

I did say a British medieval context.

True you did introduce Britain into the mix for some reason... but... women? There were women in Britain...

Yes, I understand what is commonly meant by the term. But I don't accept how we know that that time is as portrayed. If you stick around on this site, you will probably bump into alternative timelines and missing 1000s of years. Say between the 5-15th century.

That is really interesting and wasn't clear in your original message. I have lots of questions about this, but I'll start with two in particular. Firstly, whose portrayal of the medieval period are you talking about? Secondly, what about the portrayal of the medieval period troubles you?

Absolutely. Like you I have been through the educational system. It was the trellis on which I grew. However, I now find that the only meaningful way to evaluate evidence, is via personal verification. I try to apply the scientific method to what I do/look into etc. For me, to accept any of the narratives that are given is to assume too much. Embedded in those narratives are so many structures that frame our experience, that we are unable even conceive of an alternative, yet equally plausible point of view. Eg we all assume that space and planets etc exist - but we have very little personal evidence of them. So, given that I am a skeptic, and hold to a process of personal verification to establish something meaningful. I can't get to the bottom of everything that way, but it does give an insight into all the assumptions that others are prepared to make.

That is certainly an admirable stance. But it must be very time consuming, how long did it take you to look into the Parthenon? What sources did you look at? Did you read Greek and Turkish beforehand or did you have to learn them?

I haven't read it. But I didn't dismiss his work.

My apologies, I must have misunderstood. Which historical interpretation were you talking about here:

I think the historical interpretation you outline, doesn't help increase understanding about the past. It really only says something about us in the present. It seems to me that all it does is provide greater historical 'camouflage' for what what might be a totally modern point of view.

Yes. Are you aware that the BBC is also proud of its lack of bias? To me that seems laughable. Generally TPTB (the powers that be) have framed acceptable discussion within an Overton window. That window only allows those inside to see limited information. But there are other valid points of view!

I am aware of the BBC's stance, and I find it pretty laughable too. Who are TPTB and how do they frame the Overton window?

I accept that we all are trying to do that too, to a greater or lesser extent. Still, I think the evidence should lead to the theory, rather than the theory (or questions) to the evidence. That at least would be the ideal, to me. Agnostic, until the evidence such as you have is coherent enough that the conclusion is rational and reasonable enough to be followed by anyone. Or not. In fact, I think most times we will look at the past and find it cannot tell us anything useful.

Evidence does lead to theory. Theory and questions are not the same. 'What evidence can I find about prisoners?' is not a theory, it doesn't presuppose what the evidence will tell me. It was entirely possible (albeit unlikely) that I would have found no evidence. My subsequent interpretations have been formed based on the evidence I found, and then periodically changed as I uncovered more evidence or though of new or more convincing ways to interpret the evidence.

However, I think historians are mostly in the business of presenting narratives, rather than the argument and allowing us to make up our own minds. In fact I suspect that that is the point! What is taught at schools is presented as a fait accompli, ie there is no doubt about such and such a fact. There are no questions, nothing to see. But I think all we have are questions.

I'm sorry you had a bad history teacher, but that is hardly the fault of the entire discipline. I once had a bad Irish teacher, but I don't assume based on that that nothing interesting has ever been said in Irish.

As part of the historical establishment, my issue is that you present narratives as true, when they are really opinion pieces. And within the context of education, perhaps this derails many minds into believe they "know", rather than seeking. Still there is an argument for it - maybe they are happier that way!

I definitely need to circle back to the idea of the establishment, when I get time.

I do not doubt the existence of women, but I do want to understand the sources of the information provided. Google Ngram has it first mentioned in this 1724 publication.

View attachment 42223

All it says in there is this:

View attachment 42219

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of its history. From Wiki: The first page of the work contains a drawing of Noah's Ark as conceived by the scribe.

View attachment 42220

According to the provided description, this here is Noah's Ark. Which Noah is it, and when did he live? For right now we 3 to choose from, but are they one and the same? Naturally should be the #1 one, but do we really know?

• #1 Pre-flood patriarch Noah
• #2 According to the Book of Mormon, King Noah was a wicked monarch best known for burning the prophet Abinadi at the stake.
• #3 And this Noah: 1516: Noah in Tartary

???: Why would Manus O'Duignan, Solomon O'Droma, and Robert McSheedy present a non-king antediluvian Noah with a crown on his head? Did they think he was a king?

The references provided in the Wikipedia are dated with 1989, 1998 and 1981. For a book that old these references are not sufficient enough to verify anything.

• * Created: 1390-91 at the castle of Ballymote for Tonnaltagh McDonagh
• * For over a hundred years it was a treasured possession of the McDonaghs of Corran.
• * About the beginning of the 16th century, it fell into the possession of the O'Donnells with whom it remained until 1603.
• * From 1620 until 1767 it was in the library of Trinity College, Dublin.
• It disappeared from the library and was later found in Burgundy, France.
• In 1785 it was returned to the Royal Irish Academy where it remained as one of the Academy's most treasured possessions.
• The work was photographed by the Academy in 1887 and two hundred copies of it were made.
• One copy is in the diocesan archives and others in libraries.

KD: What I would like to know is where this books history between 1391 and 1724 can be verified? What sources from 1390-1724 establish its history?

• Additionally, the book was lost between 1767 and 1785. That is 18 years.
• How do we know that the book lost in 1767 was the same book recovered in 1785?

Hi KD, Ngram can only search digital references, so it is a really unreliable source for anything but the most recent history.

I admit my summery of the history of the book was a bit vague, and although Éigse and Celtica are good peer-reviewed publications, without being able to read the actual article (they haven't digitised them yet and I'm not going in to work on a Saturday to check them out of the library) it is hard to verify that they support what is on wikipedia. That said, for the full history and the available evidence, I'd suggest reading the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies' Meamram Páipéar Ríomhaire entry: Irish Script On Screen - Meamram Páipéar Ríomhaire

Personally, without any additional cross-reference data, I'd say that publisher Paul Pétau published a manuscript. I think Petau’s copy could the actual original created to substantiate the New History. Imho that is.

Hang on a second. You are proposing, without any 'cross reference data', that a 17th century publisher who printed books, composed a detailed history of a medieval war in fluent Old French (a language that hadn't been spoken for 300 years) then found someone to transcribe it in immaculate medieval book hand (a style which had changed subtly, but noticeably, since the 14th century), and added illustrations and embellishments in a medieval style (obsolete by the 17th century).

Did he do this for all of the over 2000 rare books and manuscripts in his collection? He must have been very busy, or have had an army of writers, artists, and forgers working for him.

 

[Bunnyman]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Bunnyman
Date: 2020-03-07 12:15:15
Reaction Score: 0

To be honest @Oisin is responding to this tread by invitation from @KD and I appreciate that. However, it seems @Oisin did sign on to the forum in general before this request. Thus, @Oisin must have had reason to do so. Maybe, impartial curiosity, maybe he too feels our history as professed by main stream isn't all that kosher (or maybe it is) or some other reason. But in all instances it feels absurd to me that @Oisin as a self confessed "professional" Academic should assume, or be expected to assume, the role of defender of the general Academic world. Would it not rather be helpful for @Oisin to pitch-in on topics of his interest just like the rest of us?

And on a personal note I feel that contributing to alternative narrative of presumed historical f-actualities in light of the search for truth here requires inquisitive minds free from environmental pressures such as reputation, remuneration etc. The Academic world in general as it stands today has not eaten from that apple as yet. So I would be at a loss if we are looking towards the same Academic hallways that echo a distorted and often times ludicrous narrative for either answers or to try to extract confessions or professions that have been debunked in many treads here.

Edit: my original post got lost in translation when the connection failed. Sorry for the after edit...

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Oisín
Date: 2020-03-07 12:19:29
Reaction Score: 0

I see, thank you for the clarification. It seems to me that this theory would be very easy to find evidence for, but that wouldn't make it a fact or 'the truth'. Equally it might be theorised that the human race didn't develop genitalia until the 1920s and you would find supporting evidence. However, these days a theory is considered to be a fact that you weren't there to witness:

"'If it’s called a theory, it’s the same as a hunch': That’s true sometimes, when you’re just beginning to look into a phenomenon. But after a while, the word merely means that you didn’t actually see the event play out—even if all the evidence tells you what happened. The theory of evolution? A fact. The Big Bang theory? A fact. But unless you’re 13.8 billion years old, you weren’t here to witness it all." Jeffrey Kluger March 7, 2014 Editor, Time Magazine.

Unfortunately this attitude has now infected the entire 'scientific' community and has resulted in the fictional reality within which we now find ourselves.

I'd really like to know who is funding this research into Tin's theory...

Could you clarify what you mean by truth? Lots of people on this forum are talking about truth, but I am not at all clear what you mean by it.

 

[Mabzynn]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Mabzynn
Date: 2020-03-07 12:40:11
Reaction Score: 1

Could you clarify what you mean by truth? Lots of people on this forum are talking about truth, but I am not at all clear what you mean by it.

Stop distracting.

There is far too much nonsense going on in this thread. All other questions are irrelevant and you don't need to be giving anyone guidance on the educational system. You've responded to sexuality, gender, race, and now truth... Just answer:

What is the oldest primary source that you have worked with? Be prepared to respond when you're challenged on its authenticity and origin.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-03-07 12:48:18
Reaction Score: 1

True you did introduce Britain into the mix for some reason... but... women? There were women in Britain...

I didn't say there weren't women. Also, I said British, as that is what I had understood to be the area you had been talking about. I was just making the context clearer. I absolutely wasn't disputing that there were black people in the past. I could no more do that, than say there were no white people. That (to me) would obviously be nonsense.

That is really interesting and wasn't clear in your original message. I have lots of questions about this, but I'll start with two in particular. Firstly, whose portrayal of the medieval period are you talking about? Secondly, what about the portrayal of the medieval period troubles you?

Fomenko portrays history in this way.

But the key term for me is 'portrayal'. His is a portrayal, and so are the mainstream narratives. Both are portraits or something - are any of them accurate? They are doors to the past, but who is the artist? And how much license did he use? For me, both are just interpretations, and not sources at all.

Fomenko is interesting as he expresses some logical flaws with the standard narrative - he and others illuminate inconsistencies. This is not to say the alternative interpretation is right, but they point out parts where the existing explanation fails. Any portrayals exert bias - they have to - that's not a problem. The problem is that most people are taught a narrative as if we know. There aren't any caveats in education. Its not a question of a bad teacher here or there, its that the narrative is presented as true, when it is at best a good guess, and at worst, intended to mislead.

My apologies, I must have misunderstood. Which historical interpretation were you talking about here:
"I think the historical interpretation you outline, doesn't help increase understanding about the past. It really only says something about us in the present. It seems to me that all it does is provide greater historical 'camouflage' for what what might be a totally modern point of view."

I'm talking about your methodology. You said:

The amount of new work that is being done to recover what are called ‘subaltern voices’, the histories of people who have been traditionally excluded from historical narratives like women, LGBT+ people, people of colour, people in poverty, etc., means that the discipline is changing very rapidly and new vistas of opening up all the time.

For me, you are viewing history through a modern lens. I don't think those people themselves would have seen the world on the terms you describe. You may disagree but we cannot know as we weren't there. What we can say, is that you are filling in blanks in history that address the more modern outlook. As a historian you are empowered to create a narrative for these folks in history. For me, its just more narrative, it doesn't help me to really understand the past.

That is certainly an admirable stance. But it must be very time consuming, how long did it take you to look into the Parthenon? What sources did you look at? Did you read Greek and Turkish beforehand or did you have to learn them?

No. I have to proceed with imperfect information. Often I accept the standard narrative, but try to maintain consciousness over the assumptions that that narrative makes. I don't conduct my own research in the way you think - I'm more interested in observing the inconsistencies that are expressed in the various sources we have.

I am aware of the BBC's stance, and I find it pretty laughable too. Who are TPTB and how do they frame the Overton window?

and

I definitely need to circle back to the idea of the establishment, when I get time.

Who TPTB are, is a good question. Honestly, I don't know. However, I do know that much of what we believe to be real is far different to what is presented as true in school. Additionally, money talks. If you control the purse strings, it is not as hard as you may think to fund one line of thinking over another, whether that is science, politics, history, medicine, education, etc. These are all heirarchical organisations. Of course, some people may be naturally aligned with the line that is promoted by TPTB, but really after whatever number of years steeped in educational narratives that are promoted by a ruling elite, it probably feels perfectly natural to continue with those narratives.

BTW, to give you an idea of what I consider acceptable narratives and the Overton window, you may consider that a socialist (a la Bernie/Corbyn) viewpoint is anti-authoritarian - I do not. For me the entire breadth of the political discourse is managed.

Evidence does lead to theory. Theory and questions are not the same. 'What evidence can I find about prisoners?' is not a theory, it doesn't presuppose what the evidence will tell me.

In your example, you are assuming prisoners.

Overall, I think you are very open-minded and that that is a credit to you. Perhaps you were always aware that history was a bunch of guesses/narratives, and that you were on board with expressing your view to help frame the narrative, whilst knowing it would only be just another a viewpoint.

However, I suspect that you would be on board with much of the non-historical standard narrative - politics, education, medicine, etc - eg 911 and space are probably as generally understood, for you. I would point out that your information on these topics is based solely on what has been presented on a screen. The issue I have is that many of these narratives can be debunked, within the terms of the evidence we were presented.

If you are interested in looking into something non-history related, to see examples of faked narratives, I would recommend watching this for evidence of foul play re 911:

Or if you want something quicker take a look at my post of a mouse in space:

• International Space Station saga: musical oranges or didgeridoo that gorilla

- this is really presented as real to us - but how to explain a mouse on a rocket?

Perhaps those 2 may illuminate some of the tricks that have been presented to us as true.

On truth - it is impossible to pin down. However, lies and mistakes are not truth - logical impossibilities can be proven and dismissed. Eg, in my example above, space cannot be a vacuum AND have a mouse walking around the booster of a rocket in space. Either there is no vacuum, or there is no mouse. Either way, we can conclude that those images from NASA that are presented as real are not - ie that they are a misrepresentation (or lie). Please don't let this derail the conversation on history though.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: NovaFeedback
Date: 2020-03-07 14:10:58
Reaction Score: 0

Could you clarify what you mean by truth? Lots of people on this forum are talking about truth, but I am not at all clear what you mean by it.

Definition of truth | Dictionary.com

Stop distracting.

There is far too much nonsense going on in this thread. All other questions are irrelevant and you don't need to be giving anyone guidance on the educational system. You've responded to sexuality, gender, race, and now truth...

These strategies are as old as the world. Seems fishy.