Today:
Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Day of Reflection. Nobody can read everything that appears here each day, 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.
This is for two weeks because I missed last Sunday:
/u/GraemeTaylor explains Just HOW gangsta WERE N.W.A. and it's members? I legit love when we get a random, recent cultural question and someone is able to just nail it. Well done, /u/GraemeTaylor, who, judging from browsing history, might be just 18 (like you're not curious about an NWA historian).
The impressively consistent /u/AC_7 in How did women fulfil their romantic/sexual needs during WW1/II?.
/u/molstern giving us a beautiful poem in praise of tarts by the famously violent French Revolutionary Robespierre in "Tuesday Trivia | Reading Other People’s Mail".
/u/erictotalitarian summarizes the findings of his masters thesis in Why did the Union not invade Florida During the Civil War?
/u/Krhm in How were Middle-Eastern and South Asian (Indian subcontinent area) people treated in Americas past?
/u/Ambarenya really coming into their element in What did Alexios I Komnenos do differently to his predecessors that meant he began the Komnenian restoration rather than continued the decline of the Byzantine Empire?
/u/rosemary85 doing what they do best in From the myths, Ancient Greeks had a pretty dismal view of the afterlife. Was there any sort of redemption after death or was it mindless wandering in dark?
My perennial favorite /u/Whoosier in Everybody knows the Renaissance meant a return to classical Greek and Latin texts. But where did these texts come from? How did they get to e.g. Padua, Paris or Cambridge? And was the language they were written in the only reason to suppose they were more authentic than the Arabic translations?
This meta-discussion is interesting in that it highlights the tension between being nuanced and accurate and being accessible to the general public. In my opinion, this is a key consideration in this sub, and a delicate line to walk.
I think it's good to always keep in mind when asking questions that they should be as specific as possible, since history is so broad and specialties are so narrow. The sub's rules rightfully demand this. On the flip side, it's tempting for professionals to criticize questions for lacking nuance without providing either an answer or useful guidance in asking better questions.¹ The happy medium of approachability and good history is a tough one to find.
I think one thing that this sub might benefit from is providing guidance to respondents, especially panelists, on guiding or reconstructing poor-but-interesting questions for a popular audience. That may be asking a lot--it's unquestionably not an easy task--but if it helps good history reach the masses (including myself), it may be worthwhile.
^(¹ This is not a criticism of /u/thegreenreaper7, who clearly put a great deal of time and effort into providing detailed and fascinating responses to questions and comments in that topic, and was very patient and thoughtful in responding to stylistic criticism. However, the meta-discussion is a good chance to point out the potential for disconnect between academia and the public, and I think that's worth reflection.)
I enjoyed /u/jschooltiger on What did a naval blockade look like in the age of sail?
/u/thegreenreaper7 posted a massive answer to the question "How accurate is the traditional version of feudalism"
/u/elos_ on what made life in the trenches so bad.