Ancient skeletons bury a popular right-wing talking point

[Flaminpig0]

I think we can acquit Patrick of that charge!

I disagree- accusations of racism are serious enough not to he used as a cheap debating point, particularly  by an administrator.

[Patrick Waterson]

Funnily enough, the comment was not even aimed at Ian, but the way he has adopted it suggests a guilty conscience.

I wished (and still wish) to highlight the fact that our 21st century approach to history is very deficient because of our insistence on seeing everything in terms of our own present culture.  Our supposed 'critical aproach' to history and historical sources in particular is in fact highly selective.

There are three targets which will be 'criticised' with the inevitability of sunrise:
1) Large numbers
2) Success when seriously outnumbered
3) Exceptional performance

The 'critical approach', however, will leap to embrace (without evaluation) any scrap or rumour in sources which fits a current fashionable viewpoint.

The underlying motive would appear to be a conviction that our own cultural merit is superior to that of any which have gone before, especially any at that distance in time.

So what would you call this phenomenon?  And more importantly, what would you do about it?

[Justin Swanton]

So what would you call this phenomenon?

Preferential trans-cultural deoxyribonucleism?

[DougM]

Funnily enough, the comment was not even aimed at Ian, but the way he has adopted it suggests a guilty conscience.

I wished (and still wish) to highlight the fact that our 21st century approach to history is very deficient because of our insistence on seeing everything in terms of our own present culture.  Our supposed 'critical aproach' to history and historical sources in particular is in fact highly selective.

There are three targets which will be 'criticised' with the inevitability of sunrise:
1) Large numbers
2) Success when seriously outnumbered
3) Exceptional performance

The 'critical approach', however, will leap to embrace (without evaluation) any scrap or rumour in sources which fits a current fashionable viewpoint.

The underlying motive would appear to be a conviction that our own cultural merit is superior to that of any which have gone before, especially any at that distance in time.

So what would you call this phenomenon?  And more importantly, what would you do about it?

'Current fashionable viewpoint', what do you mean by that? I would also ask members to consider that the use of 'political correctness' as a pejorative is itself a political statement.

[Prufrock]

Folks, I think we need to can this topic. No good can come of pursuing it. It's the kind of thing that can lead to serious animosity, and once such has been aroused it's very hard to get rid of. Discussions about interpretations of history are what we are here for, but we need to keep this an apolitical space as much as we can, otherwise, as has happened on so many internet forums in the past, it will poison the atmosphere and have potentially disastrous repercussions for the membership, and not just here but for the Society as a whole. None of us want people getting genuinely upset, none of us want to cause offence to others, and none of us want members leaving because of rash words, so please let's just back away from that precipice and keep this as the kind of place we want it to be.

Best,
Aaron

[Justin Swanton]

Folks, I think we need to can this topic. No good can come of pursuing it. It's the kind of thing that can lead to serious animosity, and once such has been aroused it's very hard to get rid of. Discussions about interpretations of history are what we are here for, but we need to keep this an apolitical space as much as we can, otherwise, as has happened on so many internet forums in the past, it will poison the atmosphere and have potentially disastrous repercussions for the membership, and not just here but for the Society as a whole. None of us want people getting genuinely upset, none of us want to cause offence to others, and none of us want members leaving because of rash words, so please let's just back away from that precipice and keep this as the kind of place we want it to be.

Best,
Aaron

Fair enough Aaron. I think a middle ground approach to the issue raised here would be to consider whether the current academic approach to the primary sources is as objective as is commonly assumed, but perhaps without using triggering keywords, even if those keywords are used in a context that does not actually cause offence. We live in a world where IMHO society has become rather polarized - especially over language.

[Erpingham]

Seconded Aaron.  It is hard to limit one's responses when others are talking politically.  As I've already said, we can't avoid the meta-issues of "doing history" entirely but sloganising and attacks must guarded against if we are to enjoy an environment in which we can politely disagree with one another.  Otherwise, we will degenerate to the level of a newspaper comments section.

[Erpingham]

Thanks for that edit Justin.

[Justin Swanton]

Thanks for that edit Justin.

Hot coals Anthony. 

[aligern]

So can we say the R word should not be used please? too  much baggage.
Also, try as we might there is no way that we can look at Ancient cultures except through modern eyes, though we can try very hard to make allowances for our modern points of view.   
  I think its fruitful to look at academic bias, though we have done that several times. Tony Blair once made the point that government has its own interests by which he meant that MP's, Congressmen, Lords and Senators, ministers and civil servants had interests in preserving their structures ( look at the heat generated by a propisal to cut the number of MPs in the UK).  Academics have this too. There are both subtle and direct pressures to make new interpretations. Some are reflective of changes in Society, such as Rhodes moving from rogueish hero to villain , some to the need to stand out to get academic promotion, some to the desire of senior academics to have followers and some to the desire of followers to get places and perquisites in a manner the 17th century would have been proud of. 
However, despite all those motives academics still mostly apply some critical apparatus to their work and that does include common sense! However, the problem with common sense is that one man's is not the same as anothers.
Us it common sense that the Persians did not need to have a million to conquer Greece only say 200,000 and thathat a unit of 100 by 100 on the battlefield is almost useless? or is it common sense that in the absence of a similarly valudated source we should take tge word of an ancient writer close in time to the event ? 

[Erpingham]

Thanks for that edit Justin.

Hot coals Anthony. 

Not my intention. 

[Flaminpig0]

Funnily enough, the comment was not even aimed at Ian, but the way he has adopted it suggests a guilty conscience.

The underlying motive would appear to be a conviction that our own cultural merit is superior to that of any which have gone before, especially any at that distance in time.

So what would you call this phenomenon?  And more importantly, what would you do about it?

I am usually sympathetic to fringe theories and the eccentric individuals who promulgate them but this is going a little far; clearly the phenomenon  you refer to does not fit any reasonable definition of racism. The Patrick definition of racism would  include ancient critics of Herodotus such as Plutarch who criticises the esteemed historian with a conviction which in Watersonian terms can only based upon his temporal based superior cultural merit.

( Moderated by me!  Roy)

[Flaminpig0]

So can we say the R word should not be used please? too  much baggage.

Precisely.

[Erpingham]

There may be a time to discuss whether our intellectual apparatus has advanced since ancient times but I feel now is not the time. 

As Roy has said, we approach history from our own cultural and intellectual base and with a common knowledge base.  I cannot say in all honesty that Galen is equivalent in understanding of human health to modern medics, for example.  I don't believe malaria is caused by bad air.  Even my quite conservative religious background accepts the critical study of its holy texts.  As we have said elsewhere recently, its important to try to understand how people from the past think and what agendas they may have, rather than impose our own.  But approaching our sources uncritically assuming that way brings an unbiased approach is unwise.

Roy's comment reminded me of this northern saying

"There's nowt common about common sense" .

[Prufrock]

Gentlemen, please.