8 ms·

I was hoping to see more specific criticism from someone claiming to be an expert in 5th century Rome. But all I see is a left-wing professor unhappy with insu

by omonra 11y ago

I was hoping to see more specific criticism from someone claiming to be an expert in 5th century Rome. But all I see is a left-wing professor unhappy with insufficient PC-ness of someone's argument (too Western-centric, not afraid to use the 'us-them' language, etc). His one real point is that the Rome collapsed because of partly internal and partly external factors. That's certainly true - but it was the barbarians who ultimately sacked Rome and not a civil war that did them in.

rtl49 11y ago
I think the fact that he posted this on facebook gives us reason to believe this was intended for a very general audience. Yes, his criticism is not so far from mere insult. But it remains true that Ferguson's argument is laughable, and perhaps the author's frustration with its absurdity has leaked into his writing. This is to say nothing about Europe's interests in preventing an influx of refugees, just that likening the West's conflict with Islamic extremists to the circumstances surrounding the fall of Rome is nonsense.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  What good does responding to a laughable argument with a angry laughable argument do? This fb post doesn't belong on HN.
  - rtl49 11y ago
    One possible reason is that Ferguson's words lent credibility to a social movement the author considers destructive. Even if the remarks were absurd in the context of the available evidence, few people will read further than to see they were written by a Harvard professor.
    - xiaoma 11y ago
      Does lashing out against something one feels is destructive without a reasoned argument accomplish anything positive? I have my doubts that it does. It might even lend weight to the very arguments he's attacking since he's made such a weak argument. I'm not debating his position, which I respect, but his argument. If an argument is nothing more than talking about how angry one is and then attacking those who hold the opposing position, it's noise at best and a rallying cry to a mob at worst.
      - nindalf 11y ago
        The argument in the facebook post appears reasoned. He points out that * Ferguson knows very little about the 5th Century, by his own admission * Ferguson cites Edward Gibbon, who is a poor source by modern standards. Gibbon himself felt that he his conclusions were invalid. * Ferguson grossly oversimplifies his other source, because that source tries to say the exact opposite of what Ferguson concludes. I feel like you skimmed the post, found some PC-like arguments, and concluded that its weak.
        xiaoma 11y ago
        >I feel like you skimmed the post Your feelings have lead you astray in this case. I read every word. I read Humphries' claims of his own expertise in 5th century history, his claims of Ferguson's ignorance and claims and over-simplification of the same and his outright personal attack at the end and I was not impressed with either his critique or his methods. Rather than attacking the person (or even his sources), why not address the actual fallacies in his historical analogies? What is good for a political talk show blowhard seeking ratings is not the same as what is good for a constructive discussion.
- RogtamBar 11y ago
  >Just that likening the West's conflict with Islamic extremists to the circumstances surrounding the fall of Rome is nonsense. Not entirely nonsense. Halfway maybe. Europe, like Rome, has been in decline for almost a century by now. Now opportunists are taking advantage. Of course, Roman Empire was not being pushed, to accept anyone. Europe is under intense pressure from the US and the global trade elites who believe in 'Open Borders', as a way to keep profits and power. far easier to practice electoral 'divide and conquer' in ethnically non-homogenous populations..
rustynails77 11y ago
>with insufficient PC-ness As far as I can see, PC just replaces one form of prejudice with another - I would never encourage PC from anyone. However, tolerance of the tolerant and equal respect regardless of differences (which is NOT PC) is something I promote. Simply call him racist - pure and simple. Segregating one ethnicity/religion/gender is nothing short of prejudice (eg. the woman that runs she++ falls in the same boat ... she believes genders should be treated differently, that's PC and sexist. Read her comments on Forbes - she constantly draws lines between genders with stereotypes). >it was the barbarians who ultimately sacked Rome and not a civil war that did them in. I would view the collapse of Rome through corruption/apathy and barbarian attacks. If Rome had the finances to support an army, the hordes would have been far less of an issue. You can read more about it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...
- omonra 11y ago
  I don't think PC replaces one form of prejudice with another. It rather wants to frame the debate in terms of 'you can not say that' instead of 'what you are saying is wrong'. Ie in this example the FB professor is unhappy that Fergusson considers the native European populations vs the muslim immigrants and concludes that "the majority hold views not easily reconciled with the principles of our liberal democracies, including our novel notions about sexual equality and tolerance not merely of religious diversity but of nearly all sexual proclivities". He doesn't say - 'Wait, buddy, you're wrong. Muslim immigrants do hold views compatible with X,Y,Z". Instead he says "How dare you draw comparison between the two groups, that's not cool!"
  - gozo 11y ago
    The author explains why he thinks the arguments aren't relevant. You might not agree with his explanation, but you can't just dismiss them as PC because you don't agree. > (From the article) But this is a straw man argument, producing a caricature of “us” that fails to account for the wide variety of opinions on matters of inclusion and tolerance to be found across Europe. In equal fashion, his construction of a Muslim “other” is a caricature devoid of nuance. Just take the fact that many, if not most, terrorists before becoming radicalized are secular second generation immigrants. That is what makes them easy to recruit, because of their search of a sense of belonging and not already having conflicting views on religion. If you want to talk about e.g. honor killings those attitudes might be relevant, but they aren't relevant enough when talking about these recent events to be the single focus.
nemo 11y ago
The criticism centered on using Gibbon as his primary source. Gibbon's fine to read as literature, or as a source on English thought in the 1700s, but not anything a serious historian would cite on Roman history. That's not a critique of PCisms, it's a akin to criticizing a historian for uncritically citing the New Testament as reliable account of the history of Judaea in the 1st C. It's a massively shameful failure on the part of Ferguson as a historian. He then went on to point out that Ferguson black-and-white "us" and "them" was a childish crayon drawing of reality, which is a fair point, and it's not PC to point out someone massively simplifying. He followed this up with pointing out that another source Ferguson cited, but butchered, offered observations that cut the legs out from under Ferguson. He didn't need to point out the specific details of 5th c. Rome to point out the problems in Ferguson's article, Ferguson wasn't even writing at a point where one could say he was wrong on the topic.
- omonra 11y ago
  Thank you. May I ask what in particular is seen as wrong (factually?) with Gibbon's view of Rome by today's historians? Did new information come to light since he wrote his books that makes him unsuitable for a serious historian to cite?
  - nemo 11y ago
    Gibbon wrote at a time where literary sources were the main material that was used. He actually was something of a pioneer in the 1700s in trying to tie his arguments to cited texts, which is admirable, but given how much ancient historians inherently carried a load of bias and often were offering third-hand accounts at best, they were deeply unreliable. Often histories were laden with propaganda and politics. Modern historians still do look to those historians, but are much more critical about vetting their reliability on topics, have more texts to work with (largely in thanks to the Oxyrhynchus discoveries - Oxyrhynchus was basically an ancient garbage dump in Egypt which thanks to the arid climate preserved a huge trove of texts.) Historians also have a lot of other material to work with - archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics that either weren't available or weren't really considered in Gibbon's time. Many of these offer more objective data about the goings on of the empire and can tell us a lot about things happening all over the empire and show how unreliable the texts discussing events can be. Modern historiography tries to approach history from as objective and critical a stance as can be managed, rather than seeing history as a kind of tapestry to weave a preconceived narrative from. Gibbon's historiographical approach was to weave a history from the documents that while for the most part was roughly accurate in many details, was all about building a grand narrative of how the Late Empire fell due to Christianity effectively ruining everything it touched, miring the empire in "superstition," and "enthusiasms." Today historians recognize that we are better off focusing on building as reliable an account as we can while a historian should (at least attempt to) leave the moralizing and grand narratives out.

by omonra 11y ago

rtl49 11y ago

I think the fact that he posted this on facebook gives us reason to believe this was intended for a very general audience. Yes, his criticism is not so far from mere insult. But it remains true that Ferguson's argument is laughable, and perhaps the author's frustration with its absurdity has leaked into his writing. This is to say nothing about Europe's interests in preventing an influx of refugees, just that likening the West's conflict with Islamic extremists to the circumstances surrounding the fall of Rome is nonsense.

xiaoma 11y ago
What good does responding to a laughable argument with a angry laughable argument do? This fb post doesn't belong on HN.
- rtl49 11y ago
  One possible reason is that Ferguson's words lent credibility to a social movement the author considers destructive. Even if the remarks were absurd in the context of the available evidence, few people will read further than to see they were written by a Harvard professor.
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    Does lashing out against something one feels is destructive without a reasoned argument accomplish anything positive? I have my doubts that it does. It might even lend weight to the very arguments he's attacking since he's made such a weak argument. I'm not debating his position, which I respect, but his argument. If an argument is nothing more than talking about how angry one is and then attacking those who hold the opposing position, it's noise at best and a rallying cry to a mob at worst.
    - nindalf 11y ago
      The argument in the facebook post appears reasoned. He points out that * Ferguson knows very little about the 5th Century, by his own admission * Ferguson cites Edward Gibbon, who is a poor source by modern standards. Gibbon himself felt that he his conclusions were invalid. * Ferguson grossly oversimplifies his other source, because that source tries to say the exact opposite of what Ferguson concludes. I feel like you skimmed the post, found some PC-like arguments, and concluded that its weak.
      - xiaoma 11y ago
        >I feel like you skimmed the post Your feelings have lead you astray in this case. I read every word. I read Humphries' claims of his own expertise in 5th century history, his claims of Ferguson's ignorance and claims and over-simplification of the same and his outright personal attack at the end and I was not impressed with either his critique or his methods. Rather than attacking the person (or even his sources), why not address the actual fallacies in his historical analogies? What is good for a political talk show blowhard seeking ratings is not the same as what is good for a constructive discussion.
RogtamBar 11y ago
>Just that likening the West's conflict with Islamic extremists to the circumstances surrounding the fall of Rome is nonsense. Not entirely nonsense. Halfway maybe. Europe, like Rome, has been in decline for almost a century by now. Now opportunists are taking advantage. Of course, Roman Empire was not being pushed, to accept anyone. Europe is under intense pressure from the US and the global trade elites who believe in 'Open Borders', as a way to keep profits and power. far easier to practice electoral 'divide and conquer' in ethnically non-homogenous populations..

rustynails77 11y ago

>with insufficient PC-ness As far as I can see, PC just replaces one form of prejudice with another - I would never encourage PC from anyone. However, tolerance of the tolerant and equal respect regardless of differences (which is NOT PC) is something I promote. Simply call him racist - pure and simple. Segregating one ethnicity/religion/gender is nothing short of prejudice (eg. the woman that runs she++ falls in the same boat ... she believes genders should be treated differently, that's PC and sexist. Read her comments on Forbes - she constantly draws lines between genders with stereotypes). >it was the barbarians who ultimately sacked Rome and not a civil war that did them in. I would view the collapse of Rome through corruption/apathy and barbarian attacks. If Rome had the finances to support an army, the hordes would have been far less of an issue. You can read more about it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...

omonra 11y ago
I don't think PC replaces one form of prejudice with another. It rather wants to frame the debate in terms of 'you can not say that' instead of 'what you are saying is wrong'. Ie in this example the FB professor is unhappy that Fergusson considers the native European populations vs the muslim immigrants and concludes that "the majority hold views not easily reconciled with the principles of our liberal democracies, including our novel notions about sexual equality and tolerance not merely of religious diversity but of nearly all sexual proclivities". He doesn't say - 'Wait, buddy, you're wrong. Muslim immigrants do hold views compatible with X,Y,Z". Instead he says "How dare you draw comparison between the two groups, that's not cool!"
- gozo 11y ago
  The author explains why he thinks the arguments aren't relevant. You might not agree with his explanation, but you can't just dismiss them as PC because you don't agree. > (From the article) But this is a straw man argument, producing a caricature of “us” that fails to account for the wide variety of opinions on matters of inclusion and tolerance to be found across Europe. In equal fashion, his construction of a Muslim “other” is a caricature devoid of nuance. Just take the fact that many, if not most, terrorists before becoming radicalized are secular second generation immigrants. That is what makes them easy to recruit, because of their search of a sense of belonging and not already having conflicting views on religion. If you want to talk about e.g. honor killings those attitudes might be relevant, but they aren't relevant enough when talking about these recent events to be the single focus.

nemo 11y ago

The criticism centered on using Gibbon as his primary source. Gibbon's fine to read as literature, or as a source on English thought in the 1700s, but not anything a serious historian would cite on Roman history. That's not a critique of PCisms, it's a akin to criticizing a historian for uncritically citing the New Testament as reliable account of the history of Judaea in the 1st C. It's a massively shameful failure on the part of Ferguson as a historian. He then went on to point out that Ferguson black-and-white "us" and "them" was a childish crayon drawing of reality, which is a fair point, and it's not PC to point out someone massively simplifying. He followed this up with pointing out that another source Ferguson cited, but butchered, offered observations that cut the legs out from under Ferguson. He didn't need to point out the specific details of 5th c. Rome to point out the problems in Ferguson's article, Ferguson wasn't even writing at a point where one could say he was wrong on the topic.

omonra 11y ago
Thank you. May I ask what in particular is seen as wrong (factually?) with Gibbon's view of Rome by today's historians? Did new information come to light since he wrote his books that makes him unsuitable for a serious historian to cite?
- nemo 11y ago
  Gibbon wrote at a time where literary sources were the main material that was used. He actually was something of a pioneer in the 1700s in trying to tie his arguments to cited texts, which is admirable, but given how much ancient historians inherently carried a load of bias and often were offering third-hand accounts at best, they were deeply unreliable. Often histories were laden with propaganda and politics. Modern historians still do look to those historians, but are much more critical about vetting their reliability on topics, have more texts to work with (largely in thanks to the Oxyrhynchus discoveries - Oxyrhynchus was basically an ancient garbage dump in Egypt which thanks to the arid climate preserved a huge trove of texts.) Historians also have a lot of other material to work with - archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics that either weren't available or weren't really considered in Gibbon's time. Many of these offer more objective data about the goings on of the empire and can tell us a lot about things happening all over the empire and show how unreliable the texts discussing events can be. Modern historiography tries to approach history from as objective and critical a stance as can be managed, rather than seeing history as a kind of tapestry to weave a preconceived narrative from. Gibbon's historiographical approach was to weave a history from the documents that while for the most part was roughly accurate in many details, was all about building a grand narrative of how the Late Empire fell due to Christianity effectively ruining everything it touched, miring the empire in "superstition," and "enthusiasms." Today historians recognize that we are better off focusing on building as reliable an account as we can while a historian should (at least attempt to) leave the moralizing and grand narratives out.