https://twitter.com/tcatmps/status/1269575832403574784?s=21

People are also claiming that Egypt was “black” and most Bronze Age kingdoms were “black”.

In this lecture, Kwame Anthony Appiah goes a bit into Amo Afer's life, including discrimination he suffered as professor in modern-day Germany. According to his wiki article he was " brought to Germany by the Dutch West India Company in 1707 as a child, and given as a gift to Dukes August Wilhelm and Ludwig Rudolf von Wolfenbüttel, he was treated as a member of the family ... For his further studies Amo moved to the University of Wittenberg, studying logic, metaphysics, physiology, astronomy, history, law, theology, politics, and medicine, and mastered six languages (English, French, Dutch, Latin, Greek, and German). ... Amo returned to the University of Halle to lecture in philosophy under his preferred name of Antonius Guilelmus Amo Afer. In 1736 he was made a professor." This was clearly exceptional for the time , but what do we know about his own views (eg on philosphy and/or slavery) and others' reactions to him?

edit: As a mod I can see that some are confused about my wording: I don't mean that Amo Afer travelled in time, but that he was from Accra in West Africa, what is now the capital of Ghana and was then on the Gold Coast.

Previous

Today:

Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.

As most users are aware, /r/AskHistorians is a moderated community. With a more involved set of rules than most subreddits, intended to create stricter guidelines for what kinds of content is acceptable, the moderation is generally more active and hands-on than seen elsewhere on the site. Some of what is done is easy enough to see, but much of it happens where users are unable to witness it, and as such, this edition of the Roundtable series is intended to shed a little more light on just what the role of the Moderators is in the subreddit, how we go about enforcing all these rules, and what guidelines we follow in doing so.

Removal of Content

Every day, users produce incredible content on the subreddit which meets the expectations that are laid out by the rules in place here, but unfortunately, plenty more content is posted which falls short, for any number of reasons, as laid out in the various Roundtables before, and some still to come. While we would prefer nothing needed to be removed, of course we'd also prefer that everyone read and understood the rules before posting. As such, one of the most basic functions that is undertaken by the mod team is to ensure that it is removed quickly, and accurately.

We're pretty good at both those, but it must be remembered that the Mods are only human, and in the end, there is an aspect of a judgement call to be made. Evaluation of content is a holistic process, where we are looking at many different aspects of a comment, and weighing how it reflects on what we expect. Some are more important than others, and there is rarely any one, single thing that makes or breaks a response. We're looking at factors such as how cohesive is the argument, what sources are used and how, the quality of the writing, the depth of the response, and so on. Taken as a whole, these all determine whether a response will be removed.

What is important for users to be aware of is that with our rules accessible in the sidebar, and every thread having a stickied comment on top reminding users of them, we operate on the assumption that everyone has read them or at least should be expected to have done so. We aren't blind, of course, to the fact that many users blindly forge ahead in posting, but put plainly, that is their problem, not ours. As such, comment removals, especially in threads which a good deal of activity, are often done silently, and without any notice to the user. Complaints about removal without notice are simply met with a question of whether they read the rules before posting, of which very few convincingly answer in the affirmative.

Encouragement of Content

To be sure though, not all content is removed so coldly. While many removals are of content which didn't have a chance, especially when content is borderline and only needs a bump to reach what is expected, we routinely reach out to users to discuss what they have written and offer suggestions on how it can be improved. Generally done behind the scenes, moderators spend a good deal of effort working with promising new users to help them understand the nature of the community, and encouraging their growth and improving their contributions. This includes helping them workshop answers, as well as routinely notifying them of questions which might be in their area of interest.

Warnings

On the other end of the spectrum, of course, are users who end up getting warned. As noted, not every comment will get a notification of removal. Some threads might have 30 poor quality responses, and the only thing worse than a thread with 30 removed comments, is a thread with 30 removed comments that have Macro responses. As such, whether or not to leave a warning is a judgement call for which each mod has a slightly different process, but generally follows some general guidelines.

The first removed comment in a thread is much more likely to be warned than one which comes later, as we realize that can sometimes help be a deterrent to later commentators, or at least provide explanation to readers. The frequency with which a user is posting can also be a big influence, with a user making one random first post being less a concern than one posting two sentence answers in every thread.

Just how egregious the post is also plays a big part too of course. Just as a comment that is almost good enough might receive help from a mod, there is a spectrum in the other direction. A comment which is just mediocre in is existence is more likely to simply be removed without notice, compared to one that is just terrible, which will quickly get a warning. The mediocre post becomes more likely, then, of course, if it becomes a pattern.

A history of previous warnings influences our thinking too. Warnings are tracked, and if someone who already has been told the rules is breaking them again, they are much more likely to receive a warning again, as we know they should know better.

Warnings are mostly administered using pre-written Macros that any regular by now is familiar with, but depending on the severity of the offense, we may also issues warnings via temporary ban. This is especially common in threads which have become popular, where commentators are posting highly original "[Removed]" jokes.

Bans

Bans are issues by moderators for a number of different scenarios. Most common is simply for repeated breaking of the rules. There is no set number of warnings that a user will receive, with more egregious violations of the rules perhaps only getting a single warning, or in some cases being banned on first offense, but the 'baseball' rule is the informal guidance that we use for the more mundane offenses.

No matter what rules you are breaking, "Strike Three", and you're out.

Judgement Call

It must, of course, be stressed that the above is all rough guidelines. As Mods, we enforce both the rules of the subreddit and the spirit of the community. Whether an offense is a 'ban on sight' or a 'one single warning' kind of deal will vary between mods. It is all human behavior being evaluated here, and much will exist in a grey area that requires judgement calls.

Appeals Process

So for whatever reason, you just found yourself on the end of one of those judgement calls. To be sure, our bans are permanent, but that doesn't mean that we don't sometimes make mistakes in issuing them. Honest misunderstandings do happen, and we are always happy to entertain appeals. Let's be clear with what doesn't work, for starters. If you reply with rude or insulting language, attempt to rules-lawyer yourself through a supposed loop-hole, or delete the comment and try to pretend it didn't say what it said... you'll likely get a polite "K" and be sent on your way.

We absolutely welcome polite inquiries about a ban, or removal, which lay out the reason you believe it was made in error, and ask for it to be reconsidered. Politely inquiring in modmail, while it might not guarantee a reversal, does guarantee that your case will be reviewed by a different moderator than the one who issued the ban. They can at least provide you with a more in-depth explanation of the issue, so you can better understand why it happened.

Transparency and Modding the Mods

We're a fairly small mod team, with close to 2 million monthly visitors, and in order to run the tight ship that we do, we ensure that we follow a few important internal rules that help ensure we keep each other honest, and that we provide a platform on which all users participating in good faith can receive fair and equal treatment.

The cornerstone of this is the idea that you don't mod where you post. We exist in the community as both moderators and contributors, and it is always best not for those to cross paths. If a mod thinks it is likely they will be answering a question, they will usually remove themselves from any discussion or decision making process that involves a potential answer by another user in the thread. Although it isn't supposed to extend so far down, and really only apply to something with a chance of being acceptable, often a mod writing an answer will refrain from even removing a one-line joke answer for the sake of propriety, and instead message the team Slack to take a look at the thread!

Likewise, we also work closely with each other to ensure that we are meeting the rules and expectations with what we write, as we realize that our actions and content, more than any other, reflects on the community as a whole. As mentioned above, requests to review something one mod did are always handled by another mod not involved in the initial decision, and when it comes to writing answers, we go through the same process of review as any other mod. Plenty of answers which mods write end up being edited or modified after input from other members of the team after reviewing the work, and there are a few cases in the past where after a team discussion, it was even decided that removal was perhaps the best option to pursue, although thankfully it is quite rare!

In the end though, while much of what moderators do is behind closed doors, as our communication channels are much more quick and effective, we're always working to ensure that we represent the very best the subreddit has to offer.

You can find the rest of this Rules Roundtable series here

Hello everyone. I’m Sally Foster, a member of the University of Stirling’s Heritage team. I’m an interdisciplinary scholar interested in the interlinked lives of original objects and their replicas. My colleague Sian Jones and I have just published ‘My Life as a Replica: St John’s Cross, Iona’: https://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/my-life-as-a-replica.html and https://amzn.to/2yuyLc9, Preview it here: https://issuu.com/casematepub/docs/foster_jones2020. This book invites new ways of thinking about the authenticity, value and significance of replicas. It also tells important new stories about the much-loved, world-renowned island of Iona, and its internationally significant carved stones. Iona’s extensively copied, iconic St John’s Cross, created c. AD 750, is our case study, particularly its concrete replica, 50 years old today:

In 1970 a concrete replica of the St John’s Cross arrived in Iona sitting incongruously on the deck of a puffer delivering the island’s annual supply of coal. What is the story behind this intriguing replica? How does it relate to the world’s first ringed ‘Celtic cross’, an artistic and technical masterpiece, which has been at the heart of the Iona experience since the eighth century? What does it tell us about the authenticity and value of replicas? Our research shows that replicas can acquire rich forms of authenticity and value, informed by social relations, craft practices, creativity, place and materiality. Replicas are shown to be important objects in their own right, with their own creative, human histories - biographies that people can connect with. The story of the St John’s Cross celebrates how replicas can ‘work’ for us if we let them, particularly if clues are available about their makers’ passion, creativity and craft.

I’m delighted to be here and look forward to answering your questions after 4pm BST.