4 ms·

A more accurate way to say it would be, as the last ice age ended societies that were built on participatory economies were completely destroyed by organization

A more accurate way to say it would be, as the last ice age ended societies that were built on participatory economies were completely destroyed by organizations that behaved based on domination patterns. This is well documented in Rianne Eisler’s seminal 1987 book “the chalice and the blade” and is also well described by the Strauss-Howe theory of the four turnings, etc. there’s plenty of documentation on this. I think what frustrates people is when they’re confronted with this type of data because it’s so conflicts with Neoliberal historical views. This is why Howard Zinn had to write “a peoples history” and other such books. These demonstrably show that the contemporary, modern explanation of growth and prosperity is only written from the perspective of those who did the dominating. This is a trope at this point, We know “this the Victors write the history” yet even if we know this, we still completely ignore it.

dannyobrien 3y ago
You seem very confident of this position and its coherence, but it seems to be a minority stance, with plenty of other coherent minority stances competing with it. What's the best way to tell your idea from other competing models -- not so much the neoliberal one, but other alternative claims of the nature of human history?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I wanna make sure I understand your question. Are you asking why I believe that narratives about history are more accurate than the most popular “Neo liberal history?” If so, then, that’s not really my claim. My claim is that history as it is taught to children in America in both public education, and in the majority of private education does not teach the philosophies of indigenous populations or frankly, any other population that were dominated or are otherwise different than the culture for which it is being taught. I think this is exceptionally common worldwide, so it’s not unique to America. British pupils are not taught about all of their atrocities that they committed worldwide had an equal measure, as they are taught about all of the benefits that the British brought to the world. So it’s less of a function of malice or anything like this, as it is that people really don’t want to own their own history and deal with the implications of taking full responsibility for it.
  - aksss 3y ago
    Some of this is simply what’s considered germane to modern survival vs not. The information about imperial atrocities (whether English, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Powhatan, etc) is there for the interested, but in a child’s limited day of learning it’s probably not the most important thing to dwell on so much as the abstract lessons with a few concrete examples (in the US, the holocaust and slavery generally serve). This is a reflection of brevity for efficiency but bias has certainly played a part in it. I think that’s fading to the point of absurdity though. “Land acknowledgement” proclamations at US events being a case in point. Incorporating indigenous wisdom gets a lot of focus in my corner of the US relative to its practical value and traceable legitimacy. Critical views of history, from Zinn to The 1619 Project are by no means in short supply. This has so much influence and currency on historical interpretation today that the side effect of “history without presentism” seems exceptional these days. This consequence is deleterious rather than additive to the study of history, and far apart from the goal of emphasizing “untold histories”. I would propose that what most consider “untold history” (leaving revisionist histories and counterfactuals aside) is really just a rabbit hole of fascinating nerdom rather than a conspiracy. For example, I think more people should appreciate details of North American industrialization in the 19th century. I fully recognize that most people don’t know the interesting details not because the knowledge is controlled by gatekeepers but because most people are just aren’t as interested in it as me. Should they be? Of course! But if you’re into history you’ll always be stunned by the things people don’t know that you imagine to be common knowledge (or be incensed that it’s not). People have lives though, and for most people living in the present, the past is deprioritized. It’s probably helped us as a species.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      That still does not solve the problem of having a coherent and accurate narrative history. you’re simply acknowledging that it was cherry picked and managed, and making the point that it’s required as a practicality does not in anyway excuse or correct the bias. It is not by accident that these things are not taught, where I disagree is that it has not been intentionally biased. We know for a fact that it has been intentionally biased and the entire purpose of the daughters of the confederacy in their drive-through the south to rename schools and erect monuments, explicitly to maintain racist history is unambiguous. The fact that this remains, albeit it is now being undone slowly, is exemplary of my point. It is insufficient for these significant cultural points to be casually mentioned, as opposed to intentionally acknowledged such that we can make reparations. If your position is that these things do not have remaining cultural impacts well, I don’t know what else to tell you other than that’s incorrect and again is a function of the specificity for which this history is taught. Ruby Bridges is still alive today and there are women living today who couldn’t vote. This wasn’t that long ago.

dannyobrien 3y ago

You seem very confident of this position and its coherence, but it seems to be a minority stance, with plenty of other coherent minority stances competing with it. What's the best way to tell your idea from other competing models -- not so much the neoliberal one, but other alternative claims of the nature of human history?

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I wanna make sure I understand your question. Are you asking why I believe that narratives about history are more accurate than the most popular “Neo liberal history?” If so, then, that’s not really my claim. My claim is that history as it is taught to children in America in both public education, and in the majority of private education does not teach the philosophies of indigenous populations or frankly, any other population that were dominated or are otherwise different than the culture for which it is being taught. I think this is exceptionally common worldwide, so it’s not unique to America. British pupils are not taught about all of their atrocities that they committed worldwide had an equal measure, as they are taught about all of the benefits that the British brought to the world. So it’s less of a function of malice or anything like this, as it is that people really don’t want to own their own history and deal with the implications of taking full responsibility for it.
- aksss 3y ago
  Some of this is simply what’s considered germane to modern survival vs not. The information about imperial atrocities (whether English, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Powhatan, etc) is there for the interested, but in a child’s limited day of learning it’s probably not the most important thing to dwell on so much as the abstract lessons with a few concrete examples (in the US, the holocaust and slavery generally serve). This is a reflection of brevity for efficiency but bias has certainly played a part in it. I think that’s fading to the point of absurdity though. “Land acknowledgement” proclamations at US events being a case in point. Incorporating indigenous wisdom gets a lot of focus in my corner of the US relative to its practical value and traceable legitimacy. Critical views of history, from Zinn to The 1619 Project are by no means in short supply. This has so much influence and currency on historical interpretation today that the side effect of “history without presentism” seems exceptional these days. This consequence is deleterious rather than additive to the study of history, and far apart from the goal of emphasizing “untold histories”. I would propose that what most consider “untold history” (leaving revisionist histories and counterfactuals aside) is really just a rabbit hole of fascinating nerdom rather than a conspiracy. For example, I think more people should appreciate details of North American industrialization in the 19th century. I fully recognize that most people don’t know the interesting details not because the knowledge is controlled by gatekeepers but because most people are just aren’t as interested in it as me. Should they be? Of course! But if you’re into history you’ll always be stunned by the things people don’t know that you imagine to be common knowledge (or be incensed that it’s not). People have lives though, and for most people living in the present, the past is deprioritized. It’s probably helped us as a species.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    That still does not solve the problem of having a coherent and accurate narrative history. you’re simply acknowledging that it was cherry picked and managed, and making the point that it’s required as a practicality does not in anyway excuse or correct the bias. It is not by accident that these things are not taught, where I disagree is that it has not been intentionally biased. We know for a fact that it has been intentionally biased and the entire purpose of the daughters of the confederacy in their drive-through the south to rename schools and erect monuments, explicitly to maintain racist history is unambiguous. The fact that this remains, albeit it is now being undone slowly, is exemplary of my point. It is insufficient for these significant cultural points to be casually mentioned, as opposed to intentionally acknowledged such that we can make reparations. If your position is that these things do not have remaining cultural impacts well, I don’t know what else to tell you other than that’s incorrect and again is a function of the specificity for which this history is taught. Ruby Bridges is still alive today and there are women living today who couldn’t vote. This wasn’t that long ago.