3 ms·

Well, to be fair, even the "positive" information here seems quite a bit broader than the "negative" information. Like, "war" is a very broad topic on its own.

by jhgb 5y ago

Well, to be fair, even the "positive" information here seems quite a bit broader than the "negative" information. Like, "war" is a very broad topic on its own. You can describe the events (battles and such), you can describe the technological issues of war (there's lots of books specifically dealing with history of military technology), the logistical issues (which is basically a specific branch of economic history if you think about it -- how do you supply an army on the move has always been critical), etc. etc. So even if to some extent the scope was mentioned, saying that a book about Napoleonic Wars is (surprisingly!) a book about war (which is essentially what "foreign policy, war and some of its domestic ramifications" basically boils down to) isn't quite what I'd expect as new specific information on what a book about Napoleonic wars might tackle. Subtracting a few very specific aspects doesn't help here.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>Well, to be fair, even the "positive" information here seems quite a bit broader than the "negative" information. Like, "war" is a very broad topic on its own. war is broader than gender? Everyone has the latter. I don't think I would agree that war is a broader issue than generational issues, since generational issues might be different from generation to generation but war tends to be a pretty well known subject. Hey this show is about war, ok I know what that is, and this show is about generational issues - ok what's that about then? In short, I do not agree that war is a broader issue than at least two of the mentioned issues. Not sure about race but if I were to guess I'd say war is probably broader - given that race is not a real thing and thus dealing with race must in fact be dealing with racism.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > war is broader than gender? Everyone has the latter. Everyone has a species, and yet we share most genes with other mammals. So when you're describing some fundamental topic like the role of glucose in a mammal cell, the fact that everyone has a species suddenly becomes much less relevant. Furthermore, your question probably should have been "war is broader than gender aspects of war?", since it's quite obvious that there is a vast space of gender topics outside of war and merely "gender" covers those (hence the broad topic), but they're also irrelevant here. Ditto generational issues, etc.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    I guess the point is that gender is the most salient social structure/feature of the napoleonic world, and this is a panoptic, 'monumental' history, so it's a notable omission.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > gender is the most salient social structure/feature of the napoleonic world I don't even know what that means. To me that's like saying that net wealth is a social structure. Or that nationality is a social structure. I mean, in a war of nation states, nationality of an individual for example would be obviously of prime importance, but I still don't know how it is a social structure in a war.
      - pasabagi 5y ago
        > I don't even know what that means. I just mean if you were an alien anthropologist, and you were trying to understand napoleonic europe by looking at paintings or time-travel-photographs or whatever, you'd almost certainly notice gender divisions before you noticed anything else. Nationality is obviously a social structure. That's a large part of what the napoleonic wars were about: the birth of nationalism.
        jhgb 5y ago
        You would also notice that all people in the paintings have two legs, two arms, and two eyes, and yet this knowledge would not help you understand Napoleonic Wars, or to predict the outcome of the war from the initial conditions, or anything like that. So the knowledge that people in the paintings have two legs, two arms, two eyes and two genders doesn't necessarily have to be vital for understanding Napoleonic Wars unless you find some strong evidence that it is.
        pasabagi 5y ago
        > all people All people. That's the point. All the people have two arms[0], legs, and eyes. Half the people are wearing big dresses, the other half are wearing funny-shaped hats and tight white trousers. The alien anthropologist would assume, rightly, that the first sentence is just how people look, and the second is marking some important social distinction. Since wars are fought over social distinctions, and their conduct is largely guided by social distinctions (who fights, etc), the most obvious distinctions would seem to be relevant. [0]: except Nelson.

by jhgb 5y ago

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>Well, to be fair, even the "positive" information here seems quite a bit broader than the "negative" information. Like, "war" is a very broad topic on its own. war is broader than gender? Everyone has the latter. I don't think I would agree that war is a broader issue than generational issues, since generational issues might be different from generation to generation but war tends to be a pretty well known subject. Hey this show is about war, ok I know what that is, and this show is about generational issues - ok what's that about then? In short, I do not agree that war is a broader issue than at least two of the mentioned issues. Not sure about race but if I were to guess I'd say war is probably broader - given that race is not a real thing and thus dealing with race must in fact be dealing with racism.

jhgb 5y ago
> war is broader than gender? Everyone has the latter. Everyone has a species, and yet we share most genes with other mammals. So when you're describing some fundamental topic like the role of glucose in a mammal cell, the fact that everyone has a species suddenly becomes much less relevant. Furthermore, your question probably should have been "war is broader than gender aspects of war?", since it's quite obvious that there is a vast space of gender topics outside of war and merely "gender" covers those (hence the broad topic), but they're also irrelevant here. Ditto generational issues, etc.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  I guess the point is that gender is the most salient social structure/feature of the napoleonic world, and this is a panoptic, 'monumental' history, so it's a notable omission.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > gender is the most salient social structure/feature of the napoleonic world I don't even know what that means. To me that's like saying that net wealth is a social structure. Or that nationality is a social structure. I mean, in a war of nation states, nationality of an individual for example would be obviously of prime importance, but I still don't know how it is a social structure in a war.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      > I don't even know what that means. I just mean if you were an alien anthropologist, and you were trying to understand napoleonic europe by looking at paintings or time-travel-photographs or whatever, you'd almost certainly notice gender divisions before you noticed anything else. Nationality is obviously a social structure. That's a large part of what the napoleonic wars were about: the birth of nationalism.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        You would also notice that all people in the paintings have two legs, two arms, and two eyes, and yet this knowledge would not help you understand Napoleonic Wars, or to predict the outcome of the war from the initial conditions, or anything like that. So the knowledge that people in the paintings have two legs, two arms, two eyes and two genders doesn't necessarily have to be vital for understanding Napoleonic Wars unless you find some strong evidence that it is.
        pasabagi 5y ago
        > all people All people. That's the point. All the people have two arms[0], legs, and eyes. Half the people are wearing big dresses, the other half are wearing funny-shaped hats and tight white trousers. The alien anthropologist would assume, rightly, that the first sentence is just how people look, and the second is marking some important social distinction. Since wars are fought over social distinctions, and their conduct is largely guided by social distinctions (who fights, etc), the most obvious distinctions would seem to be relevant. [0]: except Nelson.