15
16

Wondering Wednesday, 02 March 2016, Who writes 'History'? (self.badhistory)

AutoModerator[M] が 投稿 - stickied post

In this week's topic we're reviewing the writers of 'history'. What cases can you think of where the victorious were not so kindly treated by history? Who gave a voice to the vanquished and how reliable are they? Who are the most respected writers for your favourite historical period or civilisation? What cases can you think of where Victor actually did write the historic accounts that remain? Who are your favourite writers, and why? The questions listed here are to give you some ideas, don't feel constrained by them and feel free to write about anything else related to the topic.

Note: unlike the Monday and Friday megathreads, this thread is not free-for-all. You are free to discuss history related topics. But please save the personal updates for Mindless Monday and Free for All Friday! Please remember to np link all links to Reddit if you link to something from a different sub, lest we feed your comment to the AutoModerator. And of course no violating R4!

全 10 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Townsend_HarrisDred Scott was literally the Battle of Stalingrad. 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just to get things started, while the Belgians certainly defeated the natives in the Congo, they aren't treated well (at all) by history.

Also I think it's fair to say that Union(Northern) forces didn't always receive proper winner takes all the history accolades after the US civil war.

And lastly, mainly from excellent threads here, Germany was retelling the history if World War I that made Germany a victim.

[–]RoNPlayerJames Truslow Adams was a Communist 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The norse all the way. Look, you can trade and live agricultural as much as you want, but if you go raping and pillaging people who can write from time to time, you will only be known for the latter.

Although in turn future pophistory will give you snazzy horns for your helmet!

[–]taylororo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This interview with Antony Beevor is something I've been thinking about for a long time. He basically says British and American historians have long ignored uncomfortable aspects of the Allies war effort.

“I still haven’t read any American historian on the subject of the shooting of prisoners. And until recently I don’t think many British historians have written about the British killing of prisoners. That was something the Germans did, but we prefer not to talk about our boys doing it.”

This isn't exactly 'history is written by the victors', but it does point out the fact that the people from the winning may more easily ignore the ugliness of their side.

[–]King_Posner 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

the Roman conquest of neighboring tribes to get women is interesting, it's actually quite anti Roman almost.

WW2 with the bombs may be a good example, very little ethical debate over German firebombing, but huge debates over the bombs.

the federal union, depending on where you were raised.

arguably King Arthur and its myths could qualify. assuming it's about a real person and assuming they did stem, but not fully stop, the tide of Anglo Saxon invasions.

[–]LemonLenin 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

to be fair, the bombs were much more controversial and the german firebombing is dwarfed by the firebombing by the allies anyways.

[–]King_Posner 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I meant the firebombing of Germany, not their bombings. but yes those are more comparible, standard bombs, this one is "different."

so it's an example of the victors not writing they story, but that's due to ethical concerns. a similar example would be the Greeks actively questioning their genocide of an island they invaded. I presume ethics makes it more likely it's a grey story, whereas if "normal" war it's easier to hide the few bad.

[–]Origin_AccessThe exceptional Mongol 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I hope it's not my professor, as today he told us that in ancient Greece everyone thought the earth was flat and people who said otherwise were burned as witches.

[–]RoNPlayerJames Truslow Adams was a Communist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you call him out?

[–]ciderczarZapruder's vacation slides 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Victor, treated badly?

[–]chocolatepotBadHistory After Dark 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What cases can you think of where Victor actually did write the historic accounts that remain?

So this is stretching the definition of "writing", if you meant it in a more literal way, but most of the time in fashion history, essentially. When a fashion house outlasts its contemporaries, it tends to completely overshadow them in retrospect, whether the history's being written by observers or by the designers themselves. (They're not known for being self-effacing.) The best examples are Worth and Chanel.

Charles Frederick Worth stepped onto the Parisian fashion scene while a number of extremely high-end dressmakers were in business, and his later contemporaries rivaled him in acclaim. But he's remembered as the first big-name designer and the only important one during his lifetime because it was common at the time for dressmaking establishments to be named for the person in charge and to either close or change names when that person retired (depending on whether they had someone to sell the business to). Worth had sons and grandsons to pass the business and name on to, so stayed a relevant name in people's minds and continued to have power to shape the historical narrative.

Chanel was really just one of the crowd during the 1910s and 1920s, but the crowd really got knocked down during the Great Depression (houses closing left and right) and the Paris fashion world essentially shut down during the war for obvious reasons, with a lot of fashion houses not reopening afterward. Coco collaborated with the Nazis and was only able to come back years later because people helped her hide her past, and because she was then really the only one from the 1910s and 1920s still active decades post-war, she got to re-envision herself as the main fashion leader of the time, which she did in a number of interviews. Tsk tsk.