7 ms·

Why does the article need to apologise that the book does not address “questions of gender, race, or generational relations”? There’s more than one prism throug

Why does the article need to apologise that the book does not address “questions of gender, race, or generational relations”? There’s more than one prism through which we can look at the past (or the present, for that matter). Anyway, the article makes a good case. And yes, they know about the seven years’ war. Archived here: https://archive.md/GAOgo https://archive.md/GAOgo .

panzagl 5y ago
I'd still argue for the Seven Years War as a better candidate- it actually addressed global issues (the fate of N America and India), whereas the Napoleonic Wars were very much about Britain trying to maintain a status quo antebellum in Europe.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  I suggest you read the book, because Britain cared about keeping France from completely dominating Europe and from having ports on La Manche a great deal, but the status quo antebellum not at all.
bobthechef 5y ago
> Why does the article need to apologise that the book does not address “questions of gender, race, or generational relations”? Not surprising. These fetishes are currently in vogue, so the author of the article is prostrating himself before them either as lip service or because he is a true believer.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Sounds like lip service, to be honest, he does not allude to it after that sentence. Still, I dislike the fact that he felt he needed to write that. It brings nothing to the discussion.
lkrubner 5y ago
Your question amounts to "Why does an article about history have to address what is currently seen as the cutting edge of historiography?" Presumably a historian is interested in the interests of their own profession, and therefore is aware of what has been, for the last 50 years, the changing focus of historiography. That a professional should be aware of what is happening in their own profession is not a surprising idea, nor is it surprising that a reviewer would also want to give acknowledgement to those professional concerns.
- Bayart 5y ago
  >"Why does an article about history have to address what is currently seen as the cutting edge of historiography?" Identity politics is the « cutting edge of historiography » ?! It looks like the butt-end of it to me. At least I can't say I've seen it ever being taken seriously by proper historians in the periods I'm concerned with. Of course you could make the case that it's just conservatism and intellectual stiffness, and that it'll percolate eventually. You could also make the case that's it's not a very fruitful research field. The bulk of the work in social history and the history of mentalities has been done, as far as I'm aware, especially in regards to the Modern period. Historical materialism and its descent have ran their course, more or less. If anything the cutting edge of historiography is reassessing traditional narratives that predate it, as well as feeding on the progress in other disciplines that use a lot of computer modelling (genetics, linguistics).
  - lkrubner 5y ago
    You are equating historiography's increasing focus on "questions of gender, race, or generational relations" to "identity politics". That is quite a leap. One can, and should, draw political conclusions from history, but that doesn't mean that professional historians are being overtly political merely for expanding the focus of their research. I'll point out that the expanding focus of history has been constant at least since the mid-1800s. The historian Fernand Braudel once quoted the historian Jules Michelet, who had boasted in 1862, "Only in the modern age have we discovered truly universal history." Braudel remarked "Even since then historian's have been looking over their shoulder." The point is, Michelet felt he had invented universal history because he had expanded the focus of history to include some economic realities, yet his focus still seemed limited compared to the work that Braudel and the Annales School were doing in the early and mid 20th Century. And so Braudel wondered, would his own work seem limited to people living in the mid 21st Century? And of course, the answer is yes. The concerns of history, and the methods of historiography, continue to expand, constantly.
bee_rider 5y ago
The whole sentence is: "This is history from above, which deals with foreign policy, war and some of its domestic ramifications, but not so much, or not at all, with questions of gender, race, or generational relations. To have included more on these dimensions, of which the author is perfectly aware, would have required a different and even longer book." It doesn't really look like an apology to me. The reviewer is just telling us which prism the book uses to look at the past.
- jhgb 5y ago
  The question is, why those specific things? Surely there's hundreds of other issues not being considered in the book, so telling you which several issues out of hundreds are not considered does not provide much information on what prism the book does use to look at the past. Only telling which ones are considered does that. That's just Information Theory 101.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    Because they are the currently popular way of doing new analyses of history, and people will typically expect new scholarship on already well-covered topics like the Napoleonic Wars to be performed in the currently popular fashion? I don't think Information Theory is typically covered at the 100 level, but if it were, I'm sure they would include things like conditional and relative entropy.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    The first sentence says what is considered >This is history from above, which deals with foreign policy, war and some of its domestic ramifications as far as saying gender, race and generational relations were not considered I guess we know the reason, because there are people who consider these issues of overriding importance and are bound to question why they were not included in anything they read. Perhaps the author has already had these questions asked by people who reviewed the book and they decided to forestall further questions by saying there was insufficient space to address the issues.
    - 5y ago
mcguire 5y ago
"As the author shows, the reason for this imperial expansion was not primarily economic greed, important though that was, but the geopolitical desire to pre-empt European rivals." This statement is a false dichotomy. One does not pre-empt one's enemies from doing something unless one fears they will gain power from their use of the thing.
duxup 5y ago
I don’t think it is an apology, but it is jarring and I’m honestly confused what it is trying to say. Of course the book deals with the topics it already listed and not gender and so on.. I’m not at all sure why it tells us it doesn’t deal with other topics. Still don’t understand after reading all the responses here too…

panzagl 5y ago

I'd still argue for the Seven Years War as a better candidate- it actually addressed global issues (the fate of N America and India), whereas the Napoleonic Wars were very much about Britain trying to maintain a status quo antebellum in Europe.

barry-cotter 5y ago
I suggest you read the book, because Britain cared about keeping France from completely dominating Europe and from having ports on La Manche a great deal, but the status quo antebellum not at all.

bobthechef 5y ago

> Why does the article need to apologise that the book does not address “questions of gender, race, or generational relations”? Not surprising. These fetishes are currently in vogue, so the author of the article is prostrating himself before them either as lip service or because he is a true believer.

kergonath 5y ago
Sounds like lip service, to be honest, he does not allude to it after that sentence. Still, I dislike the fact that he felt he needed to write that. It brings nothing to the discussion.

lkrubner 5y ago

Your question amounts to "Why does an article about history have to address what is currently seen as the cutting edge of historiography?" Presumably a historian is interested in the interests of their own profession, and therefore is aware of what has been, for the last 50 years, the changing focus of historiography. That a professional should be aware of what is happening in their own profession is not a surprising idea, nor is it surprising that a reviewer would also want to give acknowledgement to those professional concerns.

Bayart 5y ago
>"Why does an article about history have to address what is currently seen as the cutting edge of historiography?" Identity politics is the « cutting edge of historiography » ?! It looks like the butt-end of it to me. At least I can't say I've seen it ever being taken seriously by proper historians in the periods I'm concerned with. Of course you could make the case that it's just conservatism and intellectual stiffness, and that it'll percolate eventually. You could also make the case that's it's not a very fruitful research field. The bulk of the work in social history and the history of mentalities has been done, as far as I'm aware, especially in regards to the Modern period. Historical materialism and its descent have ran their course, more or less. If anything the cutting edge of historiography is reassessing traditional narratives that predate it, as well as feeding on the progress in other disciplines that use a lot of computer modelling (genetics, linguistics).
- lkrubner 5y ago
  You are equating historiography's increasing focus on "questions of gender, race, or generational relations" to "identity politics". That is quite a leap. One can, and should, draw political conclusions from history, but that doesn't mean that professional historians are being overtly political merely for expanding the focus of their research. I'll point out that the expanding focus of history has been constant at least since the mid-1800s. The historian Fernand Braudel once quoted the historian Jules Michelet, who had boasted in 1862, "Only in the modern age have we discovered truly universal history." Braudel remarked "Even since then historian's have been looking over their shoulder." The point is, Michelet felt he had invented universal history because he had expanded the focus of history to include some economic realities, yet his focus still seemed limited compared to the work that Braudel and the Annales School were doing in the early and mid 20th Century. And so Braudel wondered, would his own work seem limited to people living in the mid 21st Century? And of course, the answer is yes. The concerns of history, and the methods of historiography, continue to expand, constantly.

bee_rider 5y ago

The whole sentence is: "This is history from above, which deals with foreign policy, war and some of its domestic ramifications, but not so much, or not at all, with questions of gender, race, or generational relations. To have included more on these dimensions, of which the author is perfectly aware, would have required a different and even longer book." It doesn't really look like an apology to me. The reviewer is just telling us which prism the book uses to look at the past.

jhgb 5y ago
The question is, why those specific things? Surely there's hundreds of other issues not being considered in the book, so telling you which several issues out of hundreds are not considered does not provide much information on what prism the book does use to look at the past. Only telling which ones are considered does that. That's just Information Theory 101.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Because they are the currently popular way of doing new analyses of history, and people will typically expect new scholarship on already well-covered topics like the Napoleonic Wars to be performed in the currently popular fashion? I don't think Information Theory is typically covered at the 100 level, but if it were, I'm sure they would include things like conditional and relative entropy.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  The first sentence says what is considered >This is history from above, which deals with foreign policy, war and some of its domestic ramifications as far as saying gender, race and generational relations were not considered I guess we know the reason, because there are people who consider these issues of overriding importance and are bound to question why they were not included in anything they read. Perhaps the author has already had these questions asked by people who reviewed the book and they decided to forestall further questions by saying there was insufficient space to address the issues.
  - 5y ago

mcguire 5y ago

"As the author shows, the reason for this imperial expansion was not primarily economic greed, important though that was, but the geopolitical desire to pre-empt European rivals." This statement is a false dichotomy. One does not pre-empt one's enemies from doing something unless one fears they will gain power from their use of the thing.

duxup 5y ago

I don’t think it is an apology, but it is jarring and I’m honestly confused what it is trying to say. Of course the book deals with the topics it already listed and not gender and so on.. I’m not at all sure why it tells us it doesn’t deal with other topics. Still don’t understand after reading all the responses here too…