This week, ending in June 18 2015:
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.
This guy gave what sounded like an AMAZING paper at the Royal Historical Society's symposium on masculinity in Britain, 1500-1900. You can see a summary of it starting here. I've copied the tweets about it below.
Great paper on late 19c anxieties about the physical 'inadequacies' of British male bodies in context of war by @MedHistoryMan #RHSmasc
New technology in war - new rifle which caused debates about function of soldier & mechanisation/masculinity. @MedHistoryMan
The machine gun (1869) did most to cause anxiety about masculinity @MedHistoryMan #RHSmasc
Maxim gun made some fear soldier had become nothing more than a military machine & martial vigour lost @MedHistoryMan #RHSmasc
There was a cult of the bayonet - late 19c seen as symbol of masculinity in face of mechanisation @MedHistoryMan #RHSmasc
Fetishisation of bayonet led to disaster in Great War @MedHistoryMan Did fear of degraded masculinity lead to this? #RHSmasc
I REALLY want to read this.
How do the historians in this subreddit feel about a specific historical materialist interpretation of the underpinnings of the US Civil War, The American Road to Capitalism by Charlie Post, arguing that that the conflict was the result of contradictory requirements of reproduction for plantation-slavery (a more feudal-like economic system) in the South and capitalist agriculture/industry in the North?
Here's a link to a free copy of the book in PDF format for those who would like to review its arguments.
Oda Nobugana from Japan's Sengoku Jidai held some surprisingly parallel beliefs to the Western Enlightenment, which peaked around two centuries after his death. Namely these beliefs were a secular-based rule of law over religious, free market systems over government control and a sense of meritocratic social mobility practiced within his own ranks.
What philosophies in Japan, or Asia overall, might have crafted such an unusual character in contrast to most hereditary Daimyos of his time?
I think this is the right place for this, but what are people's opinions on academia.edu? Do people here find it useful, or do you even use it? Is it something that people that are professors or trying to be professors actually care about?