4 ms·

> The discipline, or a sub-set of it, has become helplessly in thrall > to one of the archetypal narrative forms: Good vs Evil. Naturally, > the academics a

> The discipline, or a sub-set of it, has become helplessly in thrall > to one of the archetypal narrative forms: Good vs Evil. Naturally, > the academics are on the side of the Good. I find that this sums up more academic works that I feel comfortable admitting. And not just in the arts, but also in some of the less rigorous sciences as well, such as history and psychology.

rectang 3y ago
I think that "helplessly in thrall to one of the archetypal narrative forms: Good vs Evil" sums up everyone commenting on this page who claims that their version of history is objective, while that of [insert opponent here] is not.
- goatlover 3y ago
  No, they're saying the claims made about Henry Cort in a paper lack historical evidence in favor of telling an ideological story, which shouldn't have passed peer review. A couple of historians have already done the fact checking. Edit: Oh I misread your post. You're referring to commenters critiquing ideological opponents, not the author.
zogrodea 3y ago
That excerpt you quoted reminds very much of Herbert Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History. The introduction starts by directly talking about that topic, on page 3 of the following PDF if anyone cares to read a little. He starts talking about the perception of the historian as an avenger, beating the high and haughty while raising the downtrodden, and that it would be better for the historian to be a reconciler instead rather than one who divides large swathes of humanity in good and evil, black and white. He prefers a historian who finds common unity between two different sides and pities these two sides who perhaps had no pity for the other. His comments in the intro also touch on a phrase I personally dislike, "the right side of history". http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Butterfield,_The_Whig_Interpretation_of_History_highlights.pdf http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Butterfield,...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rectang 3y ago

I think that "helplessly in thrall to one of the archetypal narrative forms: Good vs Evil" sums up everyone commenting on this page who claims that their version of history is objective, while that of [insert opponent here] is not.

goatlover 3y ago
No, they're saying the claims made about Henry Cort in a paper lack historical evidence in favor of telling an ideological story, which shouldn't have passed peer review. A couple of historians have already done the fact checking. Edit: Oh I misread your post. You're referring to commenters critiquing ideological opponents, not the author.

zogrodea 3y ago

That excerpt you quoted reminds very much of Herbert Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History. The introduction starts by directly talking about that topic, on page 3 of the following PDF if anyone cares to read a little. He starts talking about the perception of the historian as an avenger, beating the high and haughty while raising the downtrodden, and that it would be better for the historian to be a reconciler instead rather than one who divides large swathes of humanity in good and evil, black and white. He prefers a historian who finds common unity between two different sides and pities these two sides who perhaps had no pity for the other. His comments in the intro also touch on a phrase I personally dislike, "the right side of history". http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Butterfield,_The_Whig_Interpretation_of_History_highlights.pdf http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Butterfield,...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]