The right-wing assault on history

[Sétanta]

Looks like the TWC Ministry of Love has got it in for us thought criminals. Us right wing counterrevolutionaries are changing history now? I thought doublethink was an Ingsoc principle?

And really, the historical facts are facts, because, unlike Science, history is completely factual, whereas Science is also based upon facts but most modern Science is theories. Those theories might be 99.99% fact, but we don't really know (take gravity for example. Every time we conduct an experiment with gravity, it works, but until a negative reaction happens we don't know).

That said, everybody twists those facts to suit their own purposes. Without completely going wonkers and changing history, it is quite easy to put a minor spin on something.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

... whitewashing the Middle Ages ...

Oh God, not this again ...

This 'whitewashing' that you keep objecting to is simply stuff well-known to professional historians of the Middle Ages finally filtering down to the popular level. Yes, it is counter to the popular (mis)conceptions about the period that date back to the Nineteenth Century, but that's because historians of the Nineteenth Century didn't have much of a clue about the Middle Ages (other than assumptions about them being 'dark' etc). The detailed study of the period only began in the Twentieth Century and its results are only beginning to filter down to the average reader now.

This isn't 'revisionism', let alone 'whitewashing' (nice value judgement there - something that has no place in the objective study of history), it's simply what happens when a neglected period finally gets the detailed attention it deserves.

But don't worry, I'm sure there will still be plenty of people who think medievals thought the Earth was flat etc for decades to come. I keep coming across them, so I guess the 'medieval round Earth' revisionists/whitewashers still have some work to do.

The mystery is why you are so desperate to cling to those outdated Nineteenth Century myths and bigoted value judgements about the medieval period. Very strange ...

For a history of the study of medieval history in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, see Norman Cantor's Inventing the Middle Ages - it lays out how history was dominated by Classical Studies to the detriment of study of the Middle Ages until pioneering modern historians began to turn their attention to the medieval period in the Twentieth Century.

This wicked 'whitewashing' is simply the result of their work finding its way into the popular conciousness. But feel free to cling to value judgements about 'good' and 'bad' periods of history if you like. Some people cling to using fob-watches, steel-nib pens and only travel on steam trains as well. We call them 'eccentrics'.

[RusskiSoldat]

Ivan the Terrible ordered Russian history rewritten under his editorship, and since that was more or less the only source (the official one) we shall never know what really happenned before him.

[Aristophanes]

I'm not sure if this goes into the Mudpit or the Vestigia thread, so I'll put it here.

I read "History on Trial" for my seminar on historical methods and methodology. It was a history on the debate over how history should be taught in the US. People have been arguing over how US and world history should be presented ever since the first American textbooks were written in the 18th century. From the 19th century until the early 20th century, any textbook that showed a gray area in its text on the American Revolution was derided as "sympathetic to British imperialism." After World War One, there was a Red Scare that almost erased in mention of the labor reform movements. Then, of course, there was McCarthyism, when teachers and publishers could be questioned for "un-American" subject matter. When new teaching guidelines were introduced in the 1990's, right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh started shrieking that historians were intent on teaching "grim and gloomy" history and that it would make American children become cynical.

Of course, people must also be aware of Afrocentric history as well. It's great to teach students about the African kingdoms and the experience of slavery, but most Afrocentric myths are laughable. One of those myths is that Africans lived in perfect harmony with each other, and that it all ended when the evil white men (who were also conspiring with Jews and the mafia) kidnapped them all and sent them to America.

And another thing; whenever a historian comes out with a new perspective, he or she is almost invariably accused of "revisionism" and of being a traitor. How is it treacherous to teach history by using perspectives that have been ignored until very recently? It's obvious that China was more advanced than any other civilization until the 17th century, and that the Islamic world was vibrant and dynamic until the decline of the Ottomans. Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries might soon decipher the Mayan heiroglyphs. History isn't just about what happened; stuff is always being added to it.

What are these people so afraid of? I think it's great that US history is no longer portrayed as a glorious march to greatness. It's much closer to truth now. I know about the Nisei internment camps, slavery, Jim Crow, and the Exclusion Acts. But I still love America, warts and all. It seems to be pure stupidity that right-wingers think historians should only flatter and appeal to nationalism.

Why does every topic flow somewhere along these lines: "my side would never do that"? As if only people on the 'right' wing or on the 'left' wing misrepresent history or facts in order to gain partisan advantage.
This is beyond immature.

[imb39]

A new thread is in the VV about medieval science, here. Please go there if you wish to discuss that. ihave left it here too as it is loosely involved with the thread, but can we now move back to the core of the thread - bias in historical presentation in education. - imb39

The teaching of history is of vital importance politically. It is our history that gives us our roots. It is history that shapes the present. By providing a skewed view of history, cultures/societies justify the present in many ways. It is not a right wing predeliction. all engage in it. It would be pretty naive to expect oherwise given its power. Two well known examples would be China (and the cultural revolution etc) and Nazi Germany (and the myths created about Aryanism).

History is all about bias as it deal with humans. It deals with interpretations and, to a large extent, guess work. Evidence often contains bias too.

[SigniferOne]

The mystery is why you are so desperate to cling to those outdated Nineteenth Century myths and bigoted value judgements about the medieval period. Very strange ...

Thiu, the only thing that is strange is that you repeat that my "outdated" views come from an ignorant 19th century. In fact, as I've repeatedly stated to you, they were the views of the 18th century, also, and of the 17th century also, and of the 16th century, and of the 15th, and of the 14th. Petrarch, the founder of humanism (and arguably, of the Rennaissance), wrote in in 1330, "we are living in a dark age". He was the very first to collect and value Cicero's works, and the great discoverer of Cicero's 800 letters which were then rotting hidden away in Christian monasteries. An argument can be made that humanism started even earlier with Peter Abellard. The very notion of the Renaissance, as a word, can mean only one thing: that the previous age was not worth living, and it was coined by Giorgio Vasari in 1500's in his book, Le Vite, but the understanding that the West had been living in the dark was given full form as early as the life of Leonardo Bruni (d. 1444) who was the first to divide the history of the West into the three ages of Antiquity, Middle Age, and Modern Age, with the actual term "middle age" being earlier coined by one Flavio Biondo to signify the shameful period between what once was, and what the humanists in the Renaissance were building now (i.e. the "middle" age as temporary and only transient, not even worthy of a proper name like the other two periods). And thus the story goes, from Peter Abellard, Petrarch, and Thomas Aquinas, the fathers of the Renaissance, ashamed and rejecting the legacy of the previous 800 years. All the way up to the 20th century, when historians have now rejected humanism, and essentially the entire Renaissance tradition. The right is rejecting it in order to redeem the Christianity of the Medieval Era as not so shameful as once thought (thought it is), and the left is rejecting humanism and the Renaissance because they are increasingly uncomfortable with the Renaissance tradition as hackneyed and generally to be ashamed of.

Your argument that your point of view (in favor of Dark Ages) is based merely on evidence is tenuous at best. No such argument as you make can be made exclusively on physical artifacts, which are very selective in who finds them and when (whereas the literary remains are unmistakable in their mysticism and irrationality). So the claims derived from physical remains are always very tenuous, precisely on the selective and arbitrary nature of when and by whom they are found. So, for example, now the contrary evidence is mounting against the argument that Classical era was technologically poor. Are we to revise our views of history every time a new tin pot is discovered? Archeology can tell us very little about details and values of a culture.

In all, the evidence for the Medieval Age technological superiority is still very much in the balance. But that is the only category. In every other category the balance is overwhelmingly against the Middle Ages -- starting from the great artistic tradition itself (the mindblowing Italian Renaissance against the spiritless and flat Christian drawings),
- going into philosophy (great credit to Aquinas for "Aristotelizing" Christianity),
- science (your very own points about paucity of scientists in the Dark Ages, and resurgence only closer to Renaissance),
- theater (Hroswitha of Gandersheim trying to write a Christian play to challenge the overwhelming dominance of Terence, 11 centuries after his death),
- literature (who guided Dante through Hell and Heaven? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Jesus.)
- and most any other field of human endeavor. In any field, from poetry to pneumatics, from physics to ethics of living on earth, the Middle Ages are a blot in the history of the West that best deserves being forgotten. And lest you bring up some arcane example from some forgotten monastery, the experts in all of these fields say the same thing, that they trace their professional roots only to the Renaissance (not earlier), and trace the spirit of their profession to the Arabs and earlier to the Classical civilization. The Medieval Era is universally overlooked, by all professionals who know what they're talking about. And that is all I intend to say on the Renaissance in this thread.




Syron,

I find it hard to believe that you reject the vital importance and brilliance of medieval Islam and yet claim to know the development of scientific thought.

Because the west traded with the Arabs? It’s precisely the same reason we in the west use Arabic numerals, it made trading in the Mediterranean easier to use a single system.

Yes, and why precisely were Arabic numerals easier? Why didn't the contemporary Dark Age Christians invent something better than the bulky old Roman numeral system? Because their scientific thought was nigh nonexistent, while the Arabs were reading Greek mathematical texts, patiently translating them into their own language, and pushing the science forward. Then these advances, as Thiu mentioned, were simply taken by the Christians, starting in the 12th century, through Spain.

As for Islamic science, the names Thiu provided should suffice, though I'll also add the name Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to the list, a great Islamic polymath who greatly built upon the medical works of Galen and Hippocrates. Al-Farabi not only demonstrated the existence of void in physics (19th century Western physicists still believed in ether), but considered reason superior to Islamic revelation, questioned the authority of the Koran, and rejected predestination. His books on medicine were used in Europe until the eighteenth century. Another name I'll add is Ibn Rushd (Averroes), whose translations and commentaries on Aristotle were fundamental to the rebirth of the West. I would say that he was the single most important person to the West, because if it was not for him then Aquinas would of course not have written the great Summa Theologiae, which drastically revised the old Augustinian Christianity by infusing Aristotelian (i.e. old Classical) rationality into it, and thus creating the modern (i.e. heavily Classical and rational) version of Christianity. If we all (in the West) are children of Aristotle, as someone said, then the above men are certainly a very noble part of the family.

The majority of those under Islamic Caliphates lived in much the same conditions as people in Europe.

That is flat out false, as one historian estimated, most knights in Europe bathed on average of once in their entire lives, while Islam -- a culture in the middle of a desert -- flourished with flowing water, irrigated canals, bathrooms, showers, and highly advanced personal hyugine. There's a great quote in Lawrence of Arabia where the Islamic prince says,

But you know, Lieutenant, in the Arab city of Cordoba were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village?

He wasn't far from the truth.

That site claims that Muslims invented the Astrolabe which is false, we know it was invented around the time of Hypatia, the first recorded female scientist.

Astrolabe was invented in the Classical world, but that knowledge was lost in the Middle Ages, preserved only in the rational and Aristotle-infused Islamic culture, and transmitted and improved for the West solely through Islamic contacts in Cordoba in Spain.

Yes, all civilisations to a greater or lesser extent. All I’m simply saying is that there is no evidence that the medieval Islamic civilisation was one of the “greater” ones.

What was great about medieval Islamic civilization was the profusion of mathematicians, scientists, doctors, philosophers, and every other type of learned men, when all of those men had been absent from Europe for a thousand years. This civilization was made great by its (partial) rejection of mysticism and remarkable rationality, fueled and inspired by Aristotle who was revered by Muslims and translated tirelessly, and commented on copiously.

It was only through Islam that we had received our knowledge of most of Aristotle's works (except the Organon), as well as the records of Classical culture, as well as their own Muslim advances in all branches of human knowledge. It was only through the Islamic civilization that we have all these things. And then Petrarch started recovering Classical works, Aquinas read Aristotle's great Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics and revolutionized Christianity (by making it more rational). This made Christianity more compatible with science and with reason, and converted it to the generally placid religion that we see today. Thus, from the efforts of Muslims essentially, the West has soared to the heights you see today (even while Islam itself floundered back into mysticism and irrationality). So we owe our modern West to the Renaissance humanists, and they owe much of what they did to only one source -- the Muslims.

For an interesting source on all this, see this famous book: Aristotle's Children.

Another fascinating book on the subject: the Aristotle Adventure.

[PSYCHO V]

Thus, from the efforts of Muslims essentially, the West has soared to the heights you see today …So we owe our modern West to…only one source -- the Muslims.

Oh brother... here we go..

.. most knights in Europe bathed on average of once in their entire lives, while Islam -- a culture in the middle of a desert -- flourished with flowing water, irrigated canals, bathrooms, showers, and highly advanced personal hyugine.

Proving what exactly? Islam / Muslims are somehow superior because they bathed?
Christians living hundreds of years before Mohamed were bathing regularly using huge aqueducts, extremely sophisticated systems of water management, heating, cooling etc. Even the ancient pagan Germans that lived over a 1,000 years before Islam bathed daily.
It proves only one thing, they valued “cleanliness” and thus sought means to achieve these ends.

There's a great quote in Lawrence of Arabia where the Islamic prince says,….He wasn't far from the truth.

Nor insanity.

I find it hard to believe that you reject the vital importance and brilliance of medieval Islam … why precisely were Arabic numerals easier? Why didn't the.. Christians invent something better ..? Because their scientific thought was nigh nonexistent, while the Arabs …

Oh what a lot of bigoted bullshizen! Yes Christendom (Western) sought to learn from Islam, as had Islam from Christendom (Eastern / Byzantine / Greek) that preceded them.

You do realise that ‘Arabic’ itself didn’t spontaneously appear? It grew from ancient pagan Nabataen and Parthian scripts. They from Assyrian and Summerian cunniform. Most cultures grew on the backs of thousands of years of human development, Islam is no different.

Then these advances, as Thiu mentioned, were simply taken by the Christians, starting in the 12th century, through Spain.

As Muslims had taken it from the Orthodox / Greek Christians.

It was only through Islam that we had received our knowledge of most of Aristotle's works

Yup, true. They seized it from Christian / Byzantine loot and recorded it for the prosperity of humanity.

What was great about medieval Islamic civilization was the profusion of mathematicians, scientists, doctors, philosophers, and every other type of learned men, when all of those men had been absent from Europe for a thousand years.

And who prey-tell were the forefathers of this great age of Islamic enlightenment?

:hmmm:

It was .. wait for it….

...the Jews!! (*gasps in horror*)

Under the Umayyad Caliphate, Jews were employed enmass and as a consequence trade and then science flourished. Following the break up of the Caliphate and the period of Abbasid domination, there began a shift in Islam to a more literal interpretation of Islamic belief. It began with the Fatimid Immamate, and wasn’t long before the Jews and other learned infidel were ejected from positions of influence and power. Islam became more intolerant, fanatical and xenophobic, suffering as a consequence.

This civilization was made great by its (partial) rejection of mysticism and remarkable rationality, fueled and inspired by Aristotle who was revered by Muslims and translated tirelessly, and commented on copiously.

Oh please. Islam was and is to this day steeped in mysticism.

….revolutionized Christianity (by making it more rational). This made Christianity more compatible with science and with reason, and converted it to the generally placid religion that we see today.

You make a great deal about the value of scholarship but after a comment like that I have to wonder if you are even literate yourself


my2bob

[Hansa]

History might not be a scientce in the narrow English language application of the term, but it is clearly ''wissenshaft'', (it expands knowledge etc) using a common German term for science. History isn't natural science, it bases itself not on the hypothetic-deductive method, but on hermeneutism, interpretation of human actions and already interpreted interpretations of others. Its methods are however, though numerous, clearly not just simple guesses theories thrown out of the blue. From the very beginnings og history as a university subject (19th century Germany and Ranke), it has employed methods to ensure that it isn't jus crappy guesses, source critisism, compatible sources etc on to demograpichs etc in modern times. Youcant try out historical theories in a lab (normally). You cant verify or falsify a theory using maths, or a microscope, but history is hardly fiction either.

About the whole right-wing assault on history taking place in America, history as a school subject has traditinally been employed everywhere in aN identity/nationalism building context, this has happened (and is happening) everywhere not only in the US regardless of right, left or centrist governments. But it is happening to different extents, and generally it isnt happening at a university level, at least not primarily, in ''free'' western countries. For example, how much are Americans learning about the incredible importance of the French in the US war of independece, or how much did western Europeans learn of where the 2nd world war was actually won in Europe and by whom (the Eastern front, and the Sovjets), during the cold war. How many English schoolchildren have learnt of king Louis of England, and how many French, Dutch, Norwegians and Danes learn at school of the achievements of their countrymen in the Waffen SS, or their countrymen working as guards in consentration camps.

About historians with new perspectives being called ''traitors'' I have never heard of this happening in my country, if this happenes, it is very bad, but im not sure quite what it implies. Historians at a uni level, are not supposed to tell great stories of their native countrys importance, but do actual research and try to as authentically as possible reconstruct the parts of the past they are working on (not reconstruct the medieval period in general for a medieval historian, but try to falsify hyphotesis, and aswer questions, generate knowledge regardless of how it portrays a country or person, the former is impossible and a stupid task to assume). An historian is supposed to look at the data as objectively as he can (total objectivity is an idealistic goal, and unattainable) he is supposed to work also with data that counters his theories, and not to hide them or look away from them. He is to act as other scientists, be sceptical, objective(ish) and search for truth, not produce some crappy ''Land of Saints and scolars'' Disney picture of his countrys greatness, moral superiority and importance in the past. Leave that for politicians and non-university eccentrics.

[IronBrig4]

About historians with new perspectives being called ''traitors'' I have never heard of this happening in my country, if this happenes, it is very bad, but im not sure quite what it implies.

During Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, he was screaming that "revisionist" historians were a great threat to the country from within. Rush Limbaugh (the pundit, not our fellow poster) was also whining that professors, teachers, and historians were trying to make Americans feel ashamed of their history.

A lot of people regard their national history as not only a history of the country, but a history of themselves by extension. When new historical information or perspectives are introduced, I suppose they feel as if their personal identity is under attack.

Edit: Btw, did anybody else read about that Olmec parchment found in Vera Cruz? If it is a genuine sample of writing, then our recorded history of Mesoamerica will reach back to 900 BC. You see? History is not set in stone. It changes.

[Hansa]

During Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, he was screaming that "revisionist" historians were a great threat to the country from within. Rush Limbaugh (the pundit, not our fellow poster) was also whining that professors, teachers, and historians were trying to make Americans feel ashamed of their history.

A lot of people regard their national history as not only a history of the country, but a history of themselves by extension. When new historical information or perspectives are introduced, I suppose they feel as if their personal identity is under attack.

OK, thats bad, historians should be allowed to do their job without moron politicians interfeering. Historians generally know much more on history than politicians (huge surprise!!!). As for historians making people ashamed of their history, how dare they, I mean what if German historians started claiming that the German state did bad things in, lets say the 1930s of 1940s, that would be bad? Politicians trying to alter history in a more ''positive'' direction, and instructuing professional historians on doing so are hallmarks of dictatorships (particularly totalitarian ones), I completely understand your worries.

You see? History is not set in stone. It changes

Not following, was this meant for me? I know history changes. but thanks for the info on Mesoamerican written sources, didn't know that, interesting stuff.

[IronBrig4]

Not following, was this meant for me? I know history changes. but thanks for the info on Mesoamerican written sources, didn't know that, interesting stuff.

Wasn't meant for anyone in particular. I was just proving the point I made in my original post. History is constantly evolving, with each new discovery.