4 ms·

History is only an expedient story, not that much to do with reality. We really can't know how people lived a 1000 years ago, despite what might appear to be m

History is only an expedient story, not that much to do with reality. We really can't know how people lived a 1000 years ago, despite what might appear to be mountains of evidence. This evidence is actually the creation of historians in the past century... and when you look at their sources for yourself, you will see that they are open to interpretation despite being presented as fact. For the ruling structure today, saying that the peasants of yesteryear were dirty, and even the nobility, supports the idea that we are progressing and have never had it so good. As if better tech means we have better lives. To me, it is a perfectly plausible idea that how people lived in the 'medieval' times was far more equitable, natural and healthy than today. But that story doesn't 'sell' - who would want the tech dystopia we are coding ourselves into, if a pastoral idyll were held up to it? History is what is expedient for the present. It is the story the present governance structure would like you to believe.

prox 4y ago
While that is true for writing (who wrote this? Why? How critical is the author?) There is a ton we do know. From literature/art to archeological excavations. Ofcourse, the further you go back, you get more and more filters that make things fuzzy. Lots of things were made of wood for instance, it doesn’t survive on the whole. Medieval lives in the west were very prone to disturbing forces : invasions, successions of lords/kings, religious clashes, poverty, draughts and deceases. My own ancestors in the 17th/early 18th century died from 6 different deceases and floods and harsh winters. There were “poor hunters” , hunters who kept out the poor from the village. Of 14 children, only one ancestor survived in that time of whom I descent. Another part of the family in another section of the country lived reasonably well and in peace at least. They were able to marry into better living conditions. Life in medieval times could be pastoral, but it could just as well be a wretched existence. It depends where you look and in what time.
- verisimi 4y ago
  > There is a ton we do know. From literature/art to archeological excavations. What do you think 'we' know? Is 'knowing' even a group activity? It is not of course, we can only know what we personally verify. Now you can say that you are familiar with what an archeologist has written about what he found, but it is another thing to look at the sources for yourself and see if you concur with the conclusions. I'd be interested to hear more on how you know so much about your family in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially if they were poor. If you have good information and sources that would definitely be unusual, at least as far as what I have found. Most people have hardly any records of their family history.
  - prox 4y ago
    In West Europe at least you get ecclesiastical records from the early 16th century onwards. In it are usually the names of the ones baptized, the parents and sometimes the ones witnessing (often the godmother/father but not always) Futher records to piece together their lives are tax records, registries (like doing inventories for the government) and you have guilds and orders who wrote things down. From simple bookkeeping to extensive chronicles. If you are lucky you have early authors and artists describing the locale. Even better are judicial records which tend to be exhaustive and on the whole quite accurate in description. Often noting the exact words of the of ones involved. Also there are a ton of objects surviving. Just go to your local antiquarian and be ready to dive into the world of our ancestors. All in all you get a pretty good picture of your ancestors lives and context they lived in. While knowing is a personal accomplishment, and you can go through lengths to verify all by yourself, some sources can be trusted and create a bedrock of knowledge. Like if you know C# you don’t have to go and verify if every command works as described. You trust the authors and you know it was done with rigor.
    - verisimi 4y ago
      > My own ancestors in the 17th/early 18th century died from 6 different deceases and floods and harsh winters. There were “poor hunters” , hunters who kept out the poor from the village. I am amazed you were able to deduce the above, via the use of ecclesiastical records, tax records, registries, etc. As an aside, what is a "poor hunter"? You write the term as if it a type of profession, but could it be that they lived off the land? Genuinely interested to hear more. I agree that knowing is akin to a programming language, and that being able to test the methodology others describe brings it in line with the scientific method. This is personal verification. History is assuredly NOT like this - it is an art form, a pastiche of bits of info that may (or may not) be authentic. History is re-written by the victor, and was likely a biased account in the first place! Moreover, we apply our modern way of thinking and interpretation onto what evidence we have. It's an interpretative act - what does this evidence evoke in you? Professional historians are no different - they are just empowered to write the history we are taught today. And, of course, all history can be interpolated from a specific position - eg communist, feminist, capitalist - etc. As I said, the history we are given/find is what is expedient, primarily for the governance structure. If that is not enough and you are personally interested, you can dig deeper. In that case you still don't know, but you will find a reflection of yourself. It won't be something outside of yourself that is in some way independently true. That personal analysis (personal story) has its own value, but its not that 'we know' about the historical world.
UncleMeat 4y ago
> This evidence is actually the creation of historians in the past century... Academic history tends to refer to primary sources. It is true that what survives in the archive is a curated collection, but curating the archive is not the same as doing history and should be thought of differently. Historians have absolutely no trouble with the idea that the archive can produce multiple narratives and that no narrative is the absolute truth. A lot of people from engineering and scientific backgrounds find this to be some huge blow to the field of history but really it is basic material covered in intro classes. I find it frustrating to see so many people with no or minimal background in anything resembling the discipline making wide proclamations about the limitations of history writing. We don't tend to rely on what seems plausible to untrained people.
- verisimi 4y ago
  > Historians have absolutely no trouble with the idea that the archive can produce multiple narratives and that no narrative is the absolute truth. and > I find it frustrating to see so many people with no or minimal background in anything resembling the discipline making wide proclamations about the limitations of history writing. I think I already made the same point as you, ie that no narrative is the absolute truth. You then say how my comment frustrates you. In fact, you provide a case in point about how easily things can be misunderstood! You accurately quote what I said about evidence, but failed to provide the context from the preceeding remark, where I talk about the appearance of 'mountains of evidence'. I'm not sure if it is intentional, but I feel like you have cherry picked something too make your point, despite my intention! Here is what I said: > We really can't know how people lived a 1000 years ago, despite what might appear to be mountains of evidence. This evidence is actually the creation of historians in the past century... and when you look at their sources for yourself, you will see that they are open to interpretation despite being presented as fact.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Your comment has a very strong connotation of "therefore history writing is either to be mistrusted or even downright wrong." You argue that history writing is a tool of the state or other power structures rather than honest analysis by competing professionals. That interpretation does not follow from the understanding that history writing is construction of narrative. I think you are unreasonably critical of historical writing and are presenting a false claim about what historical writing today looks like.
adictator 4y ago

prox 4y ago

While that is true for writing (who wrote this? Why? How critical is the author?) There is a ton we do know. From literature/art to archeological excavations. Ofcourse, the further you go back, you get more and more filters that make things fuzzy. Lots of things were made of wood for instance, it doesn’t survive on the whole. Medieval lives in the west were very prone to disturbing forces : invasions, successions of lords/kings, religious clashes, poverty, draughts and deceases. My own ancestors in the 17th/early 18th century died from 6 different deceases and floods and harsh winters. There were “poor hunters” , hunters who kept out the poor from the village. Of 14 children, only one ancestor survived in that time of whom I descent. Another part of the family in another section of the country lived reasonably well and in peace at least. They were able to marry into better living conditions. Life in medieval times could be pastoral, but it could just as well be a wretched existence. It depends where you look and in what time.

verisimi 4y ago
> There is a ton we do know. From literature/art to archeological excavations. What do you think 'we' know? Is 'knowing' even a group activity? It is not of course, we can only know what we personally verify. Now you can say that you are familiar with what an archeologist has written about what he found, but it is another thing to look at the sources for yourself and see if you concur with the conclusions. I'd be interested to hear more on how you know so much about your family in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially if they were poor. If you have good information and sources that would definitely be unusual, at least as far as what I have found. Most people have hardly any records of their family history.
- prox 4y ago
  In West Europe at least you get ecclesiastical records from the early 16th century onwards. In it are usually the names of the ones baptized, the parents and sometimes the ones witnessing (often the godmother/father but not always) Futher records to piece together their lives are tax records, registries (like doing inventories for the government) and you have guilds and orders who wrote things down. From simple bookkeeping to extensive chronicles. If you are lucky you have early authors and artists describing the locale. Even better are judicial records which tend to be exhaustive and on the whole quite accurate in description. Often noting the exact words of the of ones involved. Also there are a ton of objects surviving. Just go to your local antiquarian and be ready to dive into the world of our ancestors. All in all you get a pretty good picture of your ancestors lives and context they lived in. While knowing is a personal accomplishment, and you can go through lengths to verify all by yourself, some sources can be trusted and create a bedrock of knowledge. Like if you know C# you don’t have to go and verify if every command works as described. You trust the authors and you know it was done with rigor.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    > My own ancestors in the 17th/early 18th century died from 6 different deceases and floods and harsh winters. There were “poor hunters” , hunters who kept out the poor from the village. I am amazed you were able to deduce the above, via the use of ecclesiastical records, tax records, registries, etc. As an aside, what is a "poor hunter"? You write the term as if it a type of profession, but could it be that they lived off the land? Genuinely interested to hear more. I agree that knowing is akin to a programming language, and that being able to test the methodology others describe brings it in line with the scientific method. This is personal verification. History is assuredly NOT like this - it is an art form, a pastiche of bits of info that may (or may not) be authentic. History is re-written by the victor, and was likely a biased account in the first place! Moreover, we apply our modern way of thinking and interpretation onto what evidence we have. It's an interpretative act - what does this evidence evoke in you? Professional historians are no different - they are just empowered to write the history we are taught today. And, of course, all history can be interpolated from a specific position - eg communist, feminist, capitalist - etc. As I said, the history we are given/find is what is expedient, primarily for the governance structure. If that is not enough and you are personally interested, you can dig deeper. In that case you still don't know, but you will find a reflection of yourself. It won't be something outside of yourself that is in some way independently true. That personal analysis (personal story) has its own value, but its not that 'we know' about the historical world.

UncleMeat 4y ago

> This evidence is actually the creation of historians in the past century... Academic history tends to refer to primary sources. It is true that what survives in the archive is a curated collection, but curating the archive is not the same as doing history and should be thought of differently. Historians have absolutely no trouble with the idea that the archive can produce multiple narratives and that no narrative is the absolute truth. A lot of people from engineering and scientific backgrounds find this to be some huge blow to the field of history but really it is basic material covered in intro classes. I find it frustrating to see so many people with no or minimal background in anything resembling the discipline making wide proclamations about the limitations of history writing. We don't tend to rely on what seems plausible to untrained people.

verisimi 4y ago
> Historians have absolutely no trouble with the idea that the archive can produce multiple narratives and that no narrative is the absolute truth. and > I find it frustrating to see so many people with no or minimal background in anything resembling the discipline making wide proclamations about the limitations of history writing. I think I already made the same point as you, ie that no narrative is the absolute truth. You then say how my comment frustrates you. In fact, you provide a case in point about how easily things can be misunderstood! You accurately quote what I said about evidence, but failed to provide the context from the preceeding remark, where I talk about the appearance of 'mountains of evidence'. I'm not sure if it is intentional, but I feel like you have cherry picked something too make your point, despite my intention! Here is what I said: > We really can't know how people lived a 1000 years ago, despite what might appear to be mountains of evidence. This evidence is actually the creation of historians in the past century... and when you look at their sources for yourself, you will see that they are open to interpretation despite being presented as fact.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Your comment has a very strong connotation of "therefore history writing is either to be mistrusted or even downright wrong." You argue that history writing is a tool of the state or other power structures rather than honest analysis by competing professionals. That interpretation does not follow from the understanding that history writing is construction of narrative. I think you are unreasonably critical of historical writing and are presenting a false claim about what historical writing today looks like.

adictator 4y ago