This week, ending in February 20th, 2014:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Here's a question. Many of my colleagues and I were recently contacted by the producers of Ancient Aliens to ask if we wanted to be the "straight man" on their show. We all, of course, turned it down — the show is a mockery of historical documentary and there is such a thing as bad publicity.
But I wonder who they will eventually end up with. Someone who is really fringe? Someone who is too old, or too out of touch, to realize what a bad idea that is?
The show will probably have a lot of watchers. Is it our obligation as scholars to engage even with trash, or does our non-participation serve (in any way) as some kind of "check" against terrible practices? In general I don't mind interacting with kooks (I do it on here occasionally), but I'm instinctually afraid of interacting with them in a format where I can't influence how they will edit it (which could lead to them implying I said things I didn't, or take things out of context — "Could ancient Egyptians have made an atomic bomb?" "No." Cuts to the alien guy. "An thus it must have been aliens who gave it to them.").
Any thoughts? Does this actually present an ethical quandry? (I lean towards no.)
How do you strike a balance between modern perspective and historical context? Do you think presentism can be useful?
I'm just reading Osterhammel's The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century and I'm wondering about the usefulness of world history. He focuses mostly on China, Japan, Britain, Germany and the U.S., while Latin America, Africa, and large parts of Europe and Asia are ommitted. I do understand of course that world history can not actually cover the whole world. But how do historians of world history deal with these limitations?
I hope this fits here, if not, I'll ask again tomorrow in the FFA thread.
On this sub in particular, there seems to be a lot of animosity towards "pop" history books. I'm just curious how this is defined, what distinguishes it from "non-pop" history books, and what about it garners such animosity.
From today's historiographical standpoint, does historical materialism and Marx's methodology in general hold up?