2 ms·
> Should we interpret it as a victory for self empowerment or as a result of lack of soldiers during the last year of the biggest war the world had seen? Clea
by pron 9y ago
> Should we interpret it as a victory for self empowerment or as a result of lack of soldiers during the last year of the biggest war the world had seen?
Clearly as the first. Women would not have gotten the vote without the suffrage movement, just as they didn't get it after the Civil War. However, the war had an effect on the timing, as is often the case with social change movements. They can go on for decades, and finally succeed when an external event forces the dominating powers' hands. No one would say that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the cause of WWI. The alliance system was rigged to blow at the first spark, and that spark happened to be the assassination.
> Should we interpret it as men oppressing poor women or as a form plunder for profit by a religious institution that targeted those with something to take?
As medieval and early modern history was my focus in grad school, I must say that I have not seen the witch hunt described so simplistically by any professional historian that I've read, and they were relatively uncommon. Like most things in history, they were a result of a complex interaction of factors, but as is often the case, the powerful are rarely the victims of events of that sort, regardless of their complex causes.
> Personally I lean towards not trusting political movements when they write about history.
I wasn't talking about political writing but about scholarly or pseudo-scholarly works, and all writers have political leanings. Liberal writers tend to write history better than conservative ones.
- belorn 9y agoOne could as easily interpret that the abolishment movements relation with the civil war has about as much validity as the relation between the first world war and the suffrage movement. I am not saying you are wrong, but that political writers tend to disregard facts and make interpretations that fits their views regardless if they are left or right, usually to the detriment of the truth. > I have not seen the witch hunt described so simplistically Out of all writing I have read, only two books that I recall described the witch hunts as complex causes rather than a simplistic prosecution of defenseless women. I see it so often in political texts I usually tick of a mental box when i see it. When it comes to plundering, history don't seem to often show that its the most powerful in society that becomes victims. They can employ armies to defend themselves or buy enough influence to not become a target. Usually those that are targeted is those with resources to defend but that relies on social constructs for defense. But to go back to the claim about liberal writers, I can recommend a book called Debt: The First 5000 Years. The author was involved with the occupy movement so not sure if that defines him as a liberal writer or not. What I found interesting in that book (outside of the overall focus on debt) is the description of bridge gifts, slavery and veils, each having a very different interpretation to common liberal views. Since the author is a professor of anthropology he also supports those interpretations with facts that usually missing when those subjects are being discussed in a historical perspective. > Liberal writers tend to write history better than conservative ones. It is very possible that liberal writers lie less and tend to be less intentional dishonest than conservative ones. Its a very different claim that liberal writers are usually right and conservative writers usually wrong.
- pron 9y ago> but that political writers tend to disregard facts and make interpretations that fits their views regardless if they are left or right, usually to the detriment of the truth. All writers are political (I would hope all people) and there are many brilliant historians, some writing analyses that would appear contradictory to their stated views (my best professor was like that). > simplistic prosecution of defenseless women I find that hard to believe, as women were abused on a much larger scale before, during and after the witch trials. Defenseless women make easy targets, but I find it hard to believe that any historian would consider that an explanation. Women are so marginalized from all positions of power and are completely at the mercy of their fathers, brothers or husbands, but let's try just a few for being witches to drive the point home!?
- jahnu 9y agoI have to just say I have enjoyed your posts in this thread immensely. Cheers.