4 ms·
I wish I could trust any of the historians writing about this stuff, but I just don't feel I can. Here's a simple example why: > In The Secret of Life, Markel
by dash2 5y ago
I wish I could trust any of the historians writing about this stuff, but I just don't feel I can. Here's a simple example why:
> In The Secret of Life, Markel shows Watson’s racism was always part of his character. When Watson was in Naples in 1951, he wrote to his parents, “The entire city can be described as a slum and the people are wretchedly poor, living in slums which make the Negro section of Chicago look almost pleasant in comparison.”
Really? He was racist because he said Naples in 1951 was poor? Or that black Chicago in 1951 was poor? Or because, in 1951, he used the word Negro?
I think there is a large demand for stories that Rosamund Franklin as the Feminist Heroine and James Watson as the Evil Racist. And maybe those stories are true! But there's a large demand for them, and I just don't trust historians not to be servicing that demand.
- dnautics 5y agoWatson's racism was also heavily self-applied; he frequently commented (and I witnessed him give a lecture where he did it) that scots-irish american immigrants were dumb (he is one himself).
- epistasis 5y agoI don't understand how any of these comments make you trust the history less. Can you be more explicit? Is it really as simple as you don't think those things were racist therefore everything else must be wrong?
- emilfihlman 5y agoBecause there's a clear agenda of rewriting history that puts the weight of social justice over facts.
- dash2 5y agoWell, firstly my priors start off low: https://davidhughjones.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-we-trust-historians.html https://davidhughjones.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-we-trust-his... Secondly, the quote I gave seems obviously disingenuous or misguided, so that makes me trust the historian less. It's hard to see how a knowledgeable person could honestly interpret that remark as evidence of racism.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoIt's pretty telling that you say you trust historians less and then the response rewords it to "trust history less".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lern_too_spel 5y agoYou're confusing the book review, which pieces together disparate parts of the book, with the historian's evidence.
- dash2 5y agoPerhaps, but if the evidence quoted by the review here is typical, then that reflects badly on the book.
- lern_too_spel 5y agoWhy? You're making the mistake you're accusing the book of making. You're presenting something as evidence of the book being bad that doesn't actually support that argument.