Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

purplefood wrote:

LordofHats wrote:What's up with the UK and lions anyway? There aren't any Lions in Britain. At least bald eagles live in the US. Shouldn't the UK's mascot be a sheep or something

I guess it's imperial or something...
It's been on the royal coat of arms for donkey's...
If anything our mascot would be a badger...
Those things will you up...

Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules,
Of Hector and Lysander and such great names as these!
But of all the worlds brave heroes there's none that can compare,
With the tow row row row row row, to the British Grenadiers!

The point isn't that they were always dominant but that their historical development eventually made them dominant. No country to the time can compare to the empire's being built by the late 18th century by England and France. Heck, even Spain kept hanging in there after self imploding their economy with all that American gold/silver.

China had a great head start and stayed ahead for a long time (and from my vague understanding India ain't something to scoff at either) but at the end of the time line Europe over took everyone... and then subjugated them to decades of oppression...

China still had a larger economy than any of the empires until the industrial revolution. They became inwardly focused and their development slowed during that period but it still took a long time for them to actually be usurped in any meaningful sense.

Anyway, my point is that today, even though Europe's empires are gone, the scientific, economic, and political models of the European states are pretty much those of the world. That's not to say other countries are European styled or anything, merely to say that more so than any other group, I think Europeans have at this current moment spread their influence across the globe in a way unmatched in history. You have to go pretty remote to find a place without their influencing hitting somewhere (of course who knows how that view will play out in, oh say, a century *stares at China and India*).

Most of that good occurred during the industrial revolution that kicked off 250 years ago. Half of Europe wasn't even democratic 60 years ago. The enlightenment occurred for and solely for land owning nobles primarily because of translated Arabic texts which recorded greek and roman history. It didn't create the just secular revolution Europe identifies itself with for hundreds of years (specifically the industrial revolution moving the world away from an agrarian economic model).

Europe was never a "group' until the EU. Its states didn't have the population to powerfully influence world populations until the 1700s when the potato led to a population explosion. Colonialism, smallpox, and the industrial revolution led to a world predominantly influenced by European culture for a few hundred years. It also resulted in the death of millions by disease, millions more by slavery, the extinction of millions of species, and the dissolution of several empires (mostly by smallpox deaths causing power struggles and economic collapses). America alone as a single nation is almost caught up to europes realistic chronological dominance which is mostly just British imperial dominance (the american century is almost over and mirrored the imperial one in some ways).

Europe overstates its contribution to history. It's amazing how much of Europes success can be attributed directly to smallpox.

ShumaGorath wrote:The enlightenment occurred for and solely for land owning nobles primarily because of translated Arabic texts which recorded greek and roman history. It didn't create the just secular revolution Europe identifies itself with for hundreds of years (specifically the industrial revolution moving the world away from an agrarian economic model).

While the role of the Arabs is often under appreciated historically, the role of the Byzantines is equally under appreciated, as is the role of Europeans themselves. No one cultural group can claim key credit of the European Renaissance and its aftermath (EDIT: And I'm extremely familiar with the mass importance of Ibn Al-Haytham).

Europe was never a "group' until the EU.

Being united is not relevant to whether a mass of people can be discussed as having a group influence.

Colonialism, smallpox, and the industrial revolution led to a world predominantly influenced by European culture for a few hundred years. It also resulted in the death of millions by disease, millions more by slavery, the extinction of millions of species, and the dissolution of several empires (mostly by smallpox deaths causing power struggles and economic collapses).

So is your problem that Eurocentrists overstate their case or that it wasn't pretty? Cause the former is probably true (but then, I have yet to find a historical school of thought that doesn't overstate its case). The later is just hyperbole.

Europe overstates its contribution to history. It's amazing how much of Europes success can be attributed directly to smallpox.

Have you read Jared Diamond by any chance?

While the role of the Arabs is often under appreciated historically, the role of the Byzantines is equally under appreciated, as is the role of Europeans themselves. No one cultural group can claim key credit of the European Renaissance and its aftermath.

I like john greens argument that it didn't actually happen at all.

Being united is not relevant to whether a mass of people can be discussed as having a group influence.

If that's true than the Asiatic populations had every bit the influence that European ones did.

So is your problem that Eurocentrists overstate their case or that it wasn't pretty? Cause the former is probably true (but then, I have yet to find a historical school of thought that doesn't overstate its case). The later is just hyperbole.

The former. Also, I'd hardly consider the later hyperbole. The Colombian exchange resulted in one of the most egregious and systematic series of human rights abuses in the history of our species. No population has ever done worse. Did you know that only about one in twenty slaves shipped to the new world were sent to north america? The vast majority died in plantations in south america and the islands where their treatment was so poor they never actually increased in population (thus requiring further continuous shipments of fresh slaves).

Have you read Jared Diamond by any chance?

I have not.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Europe was never a "group' until the EU. Its states didn't have the population to powerfully influence world populations until the 1700s when the potato led to a population explosion.

There were in fact several European empires of varying longevity prior to the formation of the EU.

Roman Empire
Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire
Germanic Holy Roman Empire
Austrian Empire
Napoleonic Empire
Third Reich

ShumaGorath wrote:
Europe overstates its contribution to history. It's amazing how much of Europes success can be attributed directly to smallpox.

You think. Europe is the pivotal point of the modern age, and is still immensely powerful collectively and important enough with regards to isolated nation states, particularly the UK, France and Germany.

An interesting perspective, but really he's not arguing it didn't happen, just pointing out the obvious: Rich people get all the good stuff and that historical cultural shifts are not easily pinned down in a timeline. That's not really an argument it didn't happen, its stating the obvious.

He also ignores that scholarship was kind of dead in the Mid-East by the 14th century (Ottomans didn't come around till 15th fyi all) and most of the relevant documents were translated to Europe by the 13th (EDIT: Most of them through Byzantine intermediaries, and of course you can't ignore the role of Athenian scholars banished by Justianian in starting Islamic scientific achievements in the first place). Though I can tell our friend John has read George Saliba (since he quotes the section of Copernicus word for word) which is unfortunate.

Other than that I like his style

The Colombian exchange resulted in one of the most egregious and systematic series of human rights abuses in the history of our species.

Just cause I think Europeans have had a huge influence on the history of the world doesn't mean I think it was all good.

An interesting perspective, but really he's not arguing it didn't happen, just pointing out the obvious: Rich people get all the good stuff and that historical cultural shifts are not easily pinned down in a timeline. That's not really an argument it didn't happen, its stating the obvious.

Something that effects few people and occurs over hundreds of years probably shouldn't be called "the enlightenment".

He also ignores that scholarship was kind of dead in the Mid-East by the 14th century (Ottomans didn't come around till 15th fyi all) and most of the relevant documents were translated to Europe by the 13th (EDIT: Most of them through Byzantine intermediaries, and of course you can't ignore the role of Athenian scholars banished by Justianian in starting Islamic scientific achievements in the first place). Though I can tell our friend John has read George Saliba (since he quotes the section of Copernicus word for word) which is unfortunate.

He ignores it because the piece was specifically about the realistic efficacy of an "event" known as the "enlightenment". The sources of the enlightenment weren't so much his argument as the time frame and the fact that you could call any period in history with progressive technological and social advances as "the enlightenment" but we for some reason reserve that simply for when Europe pulled itself out of the gutter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just cause I think Europeans have had a huge influence on the history of the world doesn't mean I think it was all good.

No, but calling it hyperbolic when someone points out the fact that europe had very few good or just interactions with the surrounding world is.

ShumaGorath wrote:Something that effects few people and occurs over hundreds of years probably shouldn't be called "the enlightenment".

So his problem is that the name isn't apt? That's still not an argument that it didn't happen, just that our name for it isn't necessarily the best one but changing it at this point would be a pain in the ass for us and future scholars who then have to keep track of whatever the new name is and all the texts that call it the enlightenment.

We can thank the pre-Van Ranke historical schools for that but learning is a process

He ignores it because the piece was specifically about the realistic efficacy of an "event" known as the "enlightenment". The sources of the enlightenment weren't so much his argument as the time frame and the fact that you could call any period in history with progressive technological and social advances as "the enlightenment" but we for some reason reserve that simply for when Europe pulled itself out of the gutter.

Oh no, we reserve the phrase "the Enlightenment" for a specific thing in European history. Obviously it must be a unique all encompassing thing that never happened before anywhere else and will never happen again.

Come on. No one thinks that except for the plebs but who cares what they think (not congress, ZING!). They're wrong about almost everything. My college course of Recent US History had 86% of the class thinking Obama is muslim (18% of the American population still things he is, and 46% 'doesn't know'). I don't expect them to comprehend history in any meaningful context if they can't even bother to keep up with current events.

LordofHats wrote:My college course of Recent US History had 86% of the class thinking Obama is muslim (18% of the American population still things he is, and 46% 'doesn't know'). I don't expect them to comprehend history in any meaningful context if they can't even bother to keep up with current events.

A fair percentage could answer 'dont care' without being in any way ignorant. Obamas religious preferences should not be of relevance to whether he is an effective President.

No its not, but that so many people can somehow think he's Muslim after that whole spit about Reverend Wright is mind boggling.

Oh right, he's a secret Muslim out to destroy us, silly me.

So his problem is that the name isn't apt? That's still not an argument that it didn't happen, just that our name for it isn't necessarily the best one but changing it at this point would be a pain in the ass for us and future scholars who then have to keep track of whatever the new name is and all the texts that call it the enlightenment.

His problem is a eurocentric emphasis and the amount of mindshare given over to an event that didn't exist, start, or even really end and which has been mirrored in many places all over the world all throughout time. A lot of Greens emphasis in his crash course videos is in de emphasizing the eurocentric viewpoint in history because the world had another four fifths of it's population with a history all its own that needed to be talked about.

Oh no, we reserve the phrase "the Enlightenment" for a specific thing in European history. Obviously it must be a unique all encompassing thing that never happened before anywhere else and will never happen again.

That's how it was taught by a majority of history teachers since it started being taught, yeah.

Come on. No one thinks that except for the plebs but who cares what they think (not congress, ZING!). They're wrong about almost everything. My college course of Recent US History had 86% of the class thinking Obama is muslim (18% of the American population still things he is, and 46% 'doesn't know'). I don't expect them to comprehend history in any meaningful context if they can't even bother to keep up with current events.

Irrelevant and probably untrue.

Actually the professor gave us all a 10 question quiz at the start of the semester (fun stuff). Only three people in the class of 42 knew that 'Lusitania' wasn't the correct answer to 'Why did the US enter WWI?' to, so maybe I shouldn't be shocked they got most of the rest of a very simple quiz wrong.

And those numbers are from a recent US Gallup Poll (pulled from memory they are probably off a bit).

His problem is a eurocentric emphasis and the amount of mindshare given over to an event that didn't exist, start, or even really end and which has been mirrored in many places all over the world all throughout time.

I find that argument pointless, since there's a very clear pattern of cultural shifts and events to say it did. It happened. If the problem is the name I get it, but its the height of absurd revision to claim that it never happened. Any historian worth talking to knows that the Enlightenment and the Renaissance are not clear cut things that can be definitively described and pinned down to a time line, and that its role in history remains largely undefined, even just within the sphere of Europe. That's why we write books about it.

A lot of Greens emphasis in his crash course videos is in de emphasizing the eurocentric viewpoint in history because the world had another four fifths of it's population with a history all its own that needed to be talked about.

And it really shouldn't be shocking that Westerners focus and give emphasis to their own history. I'm sure the Chinese are much better with theirs and probably do the same thing, as does anywhere else with enough education to have academic scholarship in history. EDIT: Hell I say this graduating from a history department with 17 professors: 2 Russian historians, a global historian, one British Empire, one East Asia, one military historian, three environmental, a middle-east, and only two US history guys which is a pretty decent spread!

Global history is a comparatively new field, and frankly is so broad in its context that working with it is very difficult, especially since not everywhere documented things as well as Europe, ME, China, India, etc etc.

That's how it was taught by a majority of history teachers since it started being taught, yeah.

Maybe in high school, but I find history courses in high school to be horrible beyond discussing the Enlightenment. Lots of text books don't even have factually correct information (and thats before Texas started rewriting them).

I find that argument pointless, since there's a very clear pattern of cultural shifts and events to say it did. It happened. If the problem is the name I get it, but its the height of absurd revision to claim that it never happened. Any historian worth talking to knows that the Enlightenment and the Renaissance are not clear cut things that can be definitively described and pinned down to a time line. That's why we write books about it.

Then why is it a thing? If it's not clear cut, can't be defined, and has very difficult to trace effects than why is it considered an event? Why are similar periods of stable progressiveness in the Mideast, Africa, earlier periods of Europe, later periods of Europe, japan, or china not taught as well? There is a simple answer, and that is that history in the west is taught from a biased European perspective. It's the height of absurd to claim that something that effected 1% of a population, lasted hundreds of years, wasn't contiguous or interlinked, and didn't have it's effects felt until hundreds of years later by a meaningful proportion of European populations was an "event".

And it really shouldn't be shocking that Westerners focus and give emphasis to their own history. I'm sure the Chinese are much better with theirs and probably do the same thing, as does anywhere else with enough education to have academic scholarship in history.

The problem with having a history written and retold by your own people is that it's often full of lies, exaggerations, and tends to be full of holes (as western history has been until more recent globe-centric reforms in the last 20 years).

Maybe in high school, but I find history courses in high school to be horrible beyond discussing the Enlightenment. Lots of text books don't even have factually correct information (and thats before Texas started rewriting them).

And the majority of historical knowledge learned in america is learned during highschool. So yeah, there's that.

ShumaGorath wrote:Then why is it a thing? If it's not clear cut, can't be defined, and has very difficult to trace effects than why is it considered an event? Why are similar periods of stable progressiveness in the Mideast, Africa, earlier periods of Europe, later periods of Europe, japan, or china not taught as well? There is a simple answer, and that is that history in the west is taught from a biased European perspective. It's the height of absurd to claim that something that effected 1% of a population, lasted hundreds of years, wasn't contiguous or interlinked, and didn't have it's effects felt until hundreds of years later by a meaningful proportion of European populations was an "event".

Because we can't begin to examine the developments, origins, and effects of such a ting until we recognize it. The Enlightnment's 'uniqueness' is over-emphasized at times, but the marked shifts in art and culture can't be ignored. You think it was different elsewhere. Until about 500 years ago, the average life of the common peasant hadn't changed much for 4000 years. Most things of historical significance that we look at end up being focused primarily on the wealthy and the powerful because they're the chief actors in historical events (not that there isn't aren't entire fields dedicated to the study of common folk). Hellenism, the Islamic Golden Age, neo-Platonism? Common people didn't have the education or the time to care about anything other than getting fed and staying alive.

A lot of women's historical scholarship gets credited for focusing on 'grass roots' history that has long been ignored.

The problem with having a history written and retold by your own people is that it's often full of lies, exaggerations, and tends to be full of holes (as western history has been until more recent globe-centric reforms in the last 20 years).

I'd actually says the reforms go back to the 60's. Thats when we start seeing in Western Scholarship a real reform movement to get a more global perspective (and a reexamination of traditional narratives).

Unfortunately, the general public has a notable disinterest in academic history, being much more interested in folk history which tends to have poor emphasis on what actually needs emphasis.

And the majority of historical knowledge learned in america is learned during highschool. So yeah, there's that.

Dark times.

Because we can't begin to examine the developments, origins, and effects of such a ting until we recognize it. The Enlightnment's 'uniqueness' is over-emphasized at times, but the marked shifts in art and culture can't be ignored.

I agree, but they don't need to be conflated. The progression of art, progression (not establishment) of modern scientific principles, and expansion of philosophical thinking were more often than not done in isolation within their own fields. Much of it went entirely nowhere and the actual benefit to the population of Europe wasn't even felt until machines and production lines got them out of the farm (much later). By conflating slow progression in disparate fields and then implying it was actually beneficial to the populations of Europe (when the life expectancy was not at a historical highpoint) you show a willingness to participate in a form of historical revisionism for the sake of European grandeur. What matters is the truth, not the narrative. There is no narrative to the enlightenment, just a slow series of disparate events made possible by the influx of short term wealth to the nobility via sea trade.

Lordof hats, you've been warned before about mentioning Von Ranke and historical context. May the fleas of a thousand camels visit your doorstep

Anyway, back OT.

There is a reason why much of history is eurocentric, because Europe shaped the modern world. People can talk til the cows come home about Chinese dynasties, and other cultures, but Europeans went to North and South America, Africa, asia, Oz and new zealand, and the pacific too. Did any other continent do the same?

ShumaGorath wrote:What matters is the truth, not the narrative.

History is a narrative. Facts are just facts. Historical narratives pull them together so they mean something.

There is no narrative to the enlightenment, just a slow series of disparate events made possible by the influx of short term wealth to the nobility via sea trade.

Those events resulted in far reaching consequences for much of Europe. English Civil War, French Revolution, American Revolution, hell we can go back as far as the Protestant Reformation. Its hard to fully comprehend the aftermath looking at them in isolation.

History is not a sprint. Some things take centuries, and are disconnected within their own times before resulting in something later on. I doubt the Johannes Guttenburg realized what he'd unleashed in 1440 and how it would lead to the rejection of the Catholic Church mere decades later, or a rebellion on a continent he didn't even know existed in 1775. If we choose to connect all these events together for the purpose of forming the historical narrative, then that's what we choose to do. History is a construct fashioned to make sense of facts.

The construct of 'the Enlightenment' serves a useful and practical purpose because it links together numerous interdependent events to their preceding developments. To claim then that those things didn't happen on the basis that it was 'slow' and only effected the wealthy would invalidate most historical culture shifts. Not just those in Europe, but pretty much everywhere.

Its not a useful way of looking at things. Its historical nihilism.

Lordof hats, you've been warned before about mentioning Von Ranke and historical context. May the fleas of a thousand camels visit your doorstep

Do_I_Not_Like_That. We meet again

History is a narrative. Facts are just facts. Historical narratives pull them together so they mean something.

Narrative is a narrative, history is a series of events. Narratives can be pulled from history, and indeed in many cases they logically should be, but a narrative is a telling, not a happening. When you construct a narrative for the enlightenment you are constructing one that doesn't flow naturally. You are assembling something for "ease" that doesn't serve a truthful recollection of historical events. You are inventing an overall narrative by linking many separate ones, but historical tellings like that are little more than eurocentric propaganda.

Those events resulted in far reaching consequences for much of Europe. English Civil War, French Revolution, American Revolution, hell we can go back as far as the Protestant Reformation. Its hard to fully comprehend the aftermath looking at them in isolation.

Some of those events, yes. Not all of them. Not even most of them. Why conflate them when they are disparate? Not only are you doing a disservice to the direct reasons for things like the French and American revolutions, but you are misinforming people and leading them to draw false conclusions.

History is not a sprint. Some things take centuries, and are disconnected within their own times before resulting in something later on.

History is also not composed of chapters in a book. Trying to put start and end marks on a period of vague progressivism is bad form.

History is a construct fashioned to make sense of facts.

And I'm arguing that one particular construct is a disservice to those facts.

The construct of 'the Enlightenment' serves a useful and practical purpose because it links together numerous interdependent events to their preceding developments. To claim then that those things didn't happen on the basis that it was 'slow' and only effected the wealthy would invalidate most historical culture shifts. Not just those in Europe, but pretty much everywhere.

You clearly didn't understand any of my posts or the video. The argument has been that the enlightenment as an event didn't occur. That it's a useless and misinformative umbrella term interlinking disparate events and that it's narrative is damaging to truth. The things within the enlightenment happened, but the enlightenment itself is just a eurocentric bit of hype.

Its not a useful way of looking at things. Its historical nihilism.

I'll take that over historical revisionism and region specific propaganda.

ShumaGorath wrote:Narrative is a narrative, history is a series of events. Narratives can be pulled from history, and indeed in many cases they logically should be, but a narrative is a telling, not a happening.

Academic history does not deal in facts because facts are not disputed (thus there's no reason to debate them its why they're facts). History deals in narratives because a narrative is essentially what history is. History being 'stuff that happened' is one of the biggest misunderstandings between people who study history and people who just have an interest in it.

When you construct a narrative for the enlightenment you are constructing one that doesn't flow naturally.

That depends on how you define 'flow naturally.' The only problem I've ever had with the Enlightenment is the seeming unwillingness on part of historians to break the larger macro event down into sub-events, which would make its study much easier and allow for isolation of more specific event. But people seem content to treat the Enlightenment as a singular macro event and all the inner works get their specifics fleshed out on their own with marginal references to larger narrative.

You are inventing an overall narrative by linking many separate ones, but historical tellings like that are little more than eurocentric propaganda.

Your problem isn't with the narrative. it's with how the narrative is used in popular culture. Sadly there's very little that can be done with that.

Why conflate them when they are disparate?

Because they all play into one another and relate back to previous events. That's why the construct was created (or rather this is how it has been recreated).

Not only are you doing a disservice to the direct reasons for things like the French and American revolutions, but you are misinforming people and leading them to draw false conclusions.

Well, people do that in mass anyway.

History is also not composed of chapters in a book. Trying to put start and end marks on a period of vague progressivism is bad form.

History is unfortunately not a quantitative science, and does not benefit from the luxury of being able to always simply things down to lowest common denominator. Sometimes things need to be conflated to gain a full perspective on macro events. Its pretty much impossible to do global history without conflation as there wouldn't be enough pages or time to cover every single detail in any useful work. History has a very hard time juggling all the various emphasis and perspectives because of the scale of of its scope.

The argument has been that the enlightenment as an event didn't occur.

The problem is that it did. I know your saying it didn't, I just find that perspective to be entirely devoid of any usefulness and see no practical reason to accept it... That and it happened, so denying it just strikes me as absurd.

'll take that over historical revisionism and region specific propaganda.

Its funny how people treat revisionism as a negative thing when its pretty much par for the course in history on a daily basis. History is always being revised as new information comes to light. The reforms in the Western narratives are revisionist.

We can probably agree the Enlightenment gets abused by the some who like to toot their own horn, but that's not a valid reason for the annihilation of an important narrative for understanding European history.

The problem is that it did. I know your saying it didn't, I just find that perspective to be entirely devoid of any usefulness and see no practical reason to accept it... That and it happened, so denying it just strikes me as absurd.

Why? You yourself have stated that you find it annoying that people are reluctant to discuss the disparate events that make up the enlightenment. Why is the event as a narrative so important to you? How is it absurd that I dislike the co mingling of unrelated events into a eurocentric piece that in popular culture leads people to have the opinion that europe created the modern world order, science, and civilization? When a method of describing those events is that damaging to peoples understanding of history then it's bad and should be revised.

Its funny how people treat revisionism as a negative thing when its pretty much par for the course in history on a daily basis. History is always being revised as new information comes to light. The reforms in the Western narratives are revisionist.

That's why I conflated the revisionism with region specific propaganda. The enlightenment is revisionism with a purpose, it was meant to glorify the west and justify colonial and post colonial barbarity by framing history through a narrative of the enlightened European states sharing their gift with the savage other.

We can probably agree the Enlightenment gets abused by the some who like to toot their own horn, but that's not a valid reason for the annihilation of an important narrative for understanding European history.

I believe it is. If its a construct meant to aid in the understanding of history and it's having the reverse effect then it's a failed construct.

ShumaGorath wrote:You yourself have stated that you find it annoying that people are reluctant to discuss the disparate events that make up the enlightenment.

Oh they discuss them. My problem is that (and this is true of many other fields) there is a lot of disconnect between the micro and macro narratives. Few works connect the two, forcing me and others to read at least two works (likely more) to start getting the full prespective. EDIT: of course there's a good reason for that, namely that its very hard to do such a thing concisely, but not many people try anyway.

Why is the event as a narrative so important to you?

Probably because I'm a Eurocentrist (note that this term means something very different in historical circles than it does in the popular imagination). I study European history and I dabble with Middle Eastern history from time to time. Its what I do Read history books, play games, paint toy soldiers, and kill time on an internet forum when I have nothing better to do

How is it absurd that I dislike the co mingling of unrelated events into a eurocentric piece that in popular culture leads people to have the opinion that europe created the modern world order, science, and civilization?

Because that position strikes me as one of emotional outrage against European thick headed superiority complexes rather than being based in reasoned analysis.

When a method of describing those events is that damaging to peoples understanding of history then it's bad and should be revised.

People don't care, which is probably why I don't care that they don't get it. They want to live in their own little realities, they're welcome to it.

IThe enlightenment is revisionism with a purpose, it was meant to glorify the west and justify colonial and post colonial barbarity by framing history through a narrative of the enlightened European states sharing their gift with the savage other.

That's a rather old version of the narrative, circa early 20th century. These days it takes two forms; either a focus specifically on internal developments within Europe, or on the colonial effects beyond Europe. Few historians still subscribe to a 'Europe #1!' version of the narrative wholesale and no one listens to them anyway... Except for the masses but like I said, the masses are idiots and I don't care.

If its a construct meant to aid in the understanding of history and it's having the reverse effect then it's a failed construct.

Well that links in to the ongoing disconnect between academic history and folk history. But that's nothing new and its hardly something only history experiences. I prefer not to subject scholarly study to the whims of the mob.

Because that position strikes me as one of emotional outrage against European thick headed superiority complexes rather than being based in reasoned analysis.

The eurocentric analysis is also the popular american one of the same event. Regionally in south america, parts of Asia, Australia, and Africa too. It's an emotional outrage at a superiority complex that has been written into history books. It's an outrageous thing.

People don't care, which is probably why I don't care that they don't get it. They want to live in their own little realities, they're welcome to it.

I don't take to the idea that people have the right to delusions that are forced upon by a poorly constructed education system. Academics that prop up such systems do active harm. If they are aware of that fact and don't care then they are bad people.

That's a rather old version of the narrative, circa early 20th century. These days it takes two forms; either a focus specifically on internal developments within Europe, or on the colonial effects beyond Europe. Few historians still subscribe to a 'Europe #1!' version of the narrative wholesale and no one listens to them anyway... Except for the masses but like I said, the masses are idiots and I don't care.

I care, and the enlightenment narrative is an important cornerstone to their misinformation. The majority matters an awful lot.

Well that links in to the ongoing disconnect between academic history and folk history. But that's nothing new and its hardly something only history experiences. I prefer not to subject scholarly study to the whims of the mob.

I guess this is our fundamental difference. I have an expectation of everyone to want and demand truth. I'm constantly dissapointed, but I don't know if I'll ever stop wanting the world to work that way.

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't take to the idea that people have the right to delusions that are forced upon by a poorly constructed education system.

That's not a problem with the narrative either. Its a problem with the crappy educational system which didn't teach it right in the first place and just reinforces teaching it the wrong way so that they can get some more funding to keep teaching it the wrong way by teaching kids to fill in the circles on the scantron.

Academics that prop up such systems do active harm. If they are aware of that fact and don't care then they are bad people.

I'm familiar with the local school board in my area. They're three accountants, a lawyer, and home schooled paper pusher. The joys of politically appointing people who have no idea how to teach to run the education system.

I care, and the enlightenment narrative is an important cornerstone to their misinformation. What I don't care about is whether or not academics care that people are misinformed outside of their small circles. The majority matters an awful lot.

Academics produce thousands of pages a year about this subject. Its not their fault no one reads it or that school systems buy text books written by people who don't even have college degrees. I went o Barnes and Noble last week. They have a full eight racks of history books, most of them non scholarly junk texts. The rest of the store is self-help, fiction, and various how to texts. No one buys history, so fewer publishers print it, so fewer historians can afford to be historians. I read an entire article about how the general public will reject scholarly work if it doesn't fit their already cemented opinion about what is 'history.' Its a big problem. I just don't see any way for historians to fix it.

Distorting the truth to adhere to the expectations of people who don't care isn't a solution to me.

I guess this is our fundamental difference. I have an expectation of everyone to want and demand truth. I'm constantly dissapointed, but I don't know if I'll ever stop wanting the world to work that way.

Yep. I find life is easier when I don't have any expectations to be disappointed by. The difference is that you still have hope God speed.

Distorting the truth to adhere to the expectations of people who don't care isn't a solution to me.

Then why are you advocating it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yep. I find life is easier when I don't have any expectations to be disappointed by. The difference is that you still have hope God speed.

It's an unpleasant and sour life.

Then why are you advocating it?

I advocate creating the narrative that fits the facts and forms a useful means of understandings events which it does. I do not advocate throwing it out simply because I don't like how the masses interpret it.

LordofHats wrote:

Then why are you advocating it?

I advocate creating the narrative that fits the facts and forms a useful means of understandings events which it does. I do not advocate throwing it out simply because I don't like how the masses interpret it.

How is it a useful narrative when it's massively misinterpreted?

Because it explains the interconnection of numerous smaller events.

If some other people want to take that narrative, look around, and scream Europe #1, I fail to see how that's the narrative's failure anymore than its science's failure that some people still think vaccines are more dangerous than the disease they vaccinate or that there are still people who think that a diet coke means they can eat anything and not gain a pound.



People don't care about truth. They care about what they want to be true. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, they just plug their ears and say "nah."

Because it explains the interconnection of numerous smaller events.

To who? The academics don't need it because they can already see the causal links and are familiar with the smaller events. If they don't need it and the masses are misinformed by it how is it helpful?

If some other people want to take that narrative, look around, and scream Europe #1, I fail to see how that's the narrative's failure anymore than its science's failure that some people still think vaccines are more dangerous than the disease they vaccinate or that there are still people who think that a diet coke means they can eat anything and not gain a pound.

Because science doesn't teach that. History academia does teach a eurocentric and pro west versioning of history.

People don't care about truth. They care about what they want to be true. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, they just plug their ears and say "nah."

And they're aided by people who refuse to reform because they see no need to do away with harmful traditions. I think we're done here. You don't care that it misinforms because people are dumb, I care that people are dumb because they're being misinformed. This isn't going to work itself out I suspect.

ShumaGorath wrote:To who? The academics don't need it because they can already see the causal links and are familiar with the smaller events. If they don't need it and the masses are misinformed by it how is it helpful?

... The academics see the links because they crafted a narrative to illustrate them... That way all the future academics don't have to spend their careers figuring it out cause its already been at least marginally mapped out for them.

History academia does teach a eurocentric and pro west versioning of history.

Which invalidates the existence of the Enlightenment how? Again, you aren't arguing the Enlightenment isn't real, your complaining that poorly educated people have no real clue what it is and blaming it on the experts those people ignore. You can't make a horse drink the water. I'm not talking about obscure state secrets. The views I've described, and dozens of others probably, are published on a regular basis. Its not the historians fault no one chooses to read their work except other historians.

And they're aided by people who refuse to reform because they see no need to do away with harmful traditions.

Yes. Because recognizing that a series of interlinked technological, philosophical, and social shifts taking place over a broad period of time had a noticeable and trackable influence on the course of human events in Europe and spilled over through the Imperial era with effects on non-Europeans is a harmful tradition. I mean, suggesting such a thing is clearly absurd and solely focused on making white people look awesome. There's no validity in it at all.

You don't care that it misinforms because people are dumb, I care that people are dumb because they're being misinformed.

As I find with most things, the truth is probably somewhere between the two. Just a wild guess based on past patterns

This isn't going to work itself out I suspect.

Probably not.

Yes. Because recognizing that a series of interlinked technological, philosophical, and social shifts taking place over a broad period of time had a noticeable and trackable influence on the course of human events in Europe

And which had no beginning, middle, or end, wasn't unique, is incorrectly represented as popularly beneficial, and was followed by the largest scale violation of human rights in the history of humans.

We call that in most circles " self aggrandizement". An "enlightened" people wouldn't kill or enslave the populations of two continents, force drug sales in another, and engage in nearly continuous warfare for hundreds of years.

is a harmful tradition.

Yes. I call it a harmful tradition. Institutionalized lies are often harmful.

I mean, suggesting such a thing is clearly absurd

This is a lot like an argument I got into with someone who liked the second full metal alchemist more than the first. The story was weaker, more full of plot holes, characters appeared and disappeared at random, the story meandered, and most of the story existed to prop up needless fights and unconnected events. It had a lot bigger budget though and it followed the traditional narrative, thus nothing in it could be wrong.

You sound like a fanboy.