3 ms·

They aren't "destructive to" human history, merely a part of it. In an ideological view of history, constructed to position our place in it as correct or at lea

They aren't "destructive to" human history, merely a part of it. In an ideological view of history, constructed to position our place in it as correct or at least inevitable, yes they would be bad, representing a challenge or setback on the way to us. Historians don't (consciously, openly) reproduce this view of history though. We didn't earn our place in this story, nor did our ancestors earn it for us. We are simply here, and may attempt to explain how using the tools available to us. As new information is uncovered or understood, we need to update the artifact "History" to reflect our understanding.

taeric 3y ago
I am not clear where you got "destructive to," but I would guess that meant more that they are a large part of why we don't know the history of some places. They didn't leave survivors and were more than willing to destroy cultural artifacts that we would find valuable today. I honestly suspect more in the current world would be willing to destroy cultural artifacts than many modern perspectives would believe. Not just outside of "the west," either. Though, I can't but feel that it is heightened there.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  From their clarifying response to their own comment : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38930441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38930441
  - taeric 3y ago
    Ah, I wasn't expecting to read down then up. :D This thread would have made more sense under that clarifying response. Reading that, I suspect my guess was fairly accurate? They were somewhat more effective than a lot of others we discuss on not just killing people, but effectively erasing their existence in the process.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      I see what you mean, and maybe that's what they were getting at after all. Still I think it gets into a history vs historiography thing. If something makes it hard to reconstruct what happened around it in history, was that thing necessarily bad? It certainly makes life harder for historians. My understanding of history as a professional discipline is that historians mostly try to excise value judgements like this from their practice. Individuals are free to feel how they feel about past events, but historians trying to understand and accurately place those events into context are not. To a historian the question of rehabilitating the mongol khanates should have no meaning, because they were never "dehabilitated" in the first place. They were simply a thing that we used to know slightly less about (partly because of their own actions!), and now can see a little more clearly.
      - taeric 3y ago
        I think there is a subtlety there. Historians would not necessarily hold ancient people to modern standards. That said, they do not have to ignore their impact on others and can take aim at not holding some practices in good terms. Consider, do we look neutrally on infanticide? Now, granted, this does seem to largely be a "western" thing? We are more than willing to criticize our roots and ancestors. It does seem that this is getting silly where our willingness to discuss "bad" things in our history has blinded a lot of people into thinking that other cultures do not have similar items they needed to grow from. As an easy example, it is baffling to me how slavery and minority oppression is largely viewed as a US thing. Edit: Consider, we would accurately call the practices described as genocidal. You can say that neutrally, sure, but I don't think any modern person should aspire for a genocidal society?
harimau777 3y ago
That's only the case if an ideological view of history is wrong; which is certainly one way to approach history. However, there's nothing to say that approach is inherently correct.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Yes I am assuming an ideological view of history is "wrong," as do almost all working historians. Nothing is "inherently correct" in this domain, historians subscribe to this model because it is most generally useful for their purposes. Ideological history is most useful for purposes other than strict historiography. Notably and notoriously propaganda lol. What are you getting at here?
- concordDance 3y ago
  Given that ideology can be quite corrosive to truth (selection effects on transmission of information will distort things and that's just one of the effects), an approach that tries to avoid ideology is likely to get a more accurate view of the past.

taeric 3y ago

I am not clear where you got "destructive to," but I would guess that meant more that they are a large part of why we don't know the history of some places. They didn't leave survivors and were more than willing to destroy cultural artifacts that we would find valuable today. I honestly suspect more in the current world would be willing to destroy cultural artifacts than many modern perspectives would believe. Not just outside of "the west," either. Though, I can't but feel that it is heightened there.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
From their clarifying response to their own comment : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38930441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38930441
- taeric 3y ago
  Ah, I wasn't expecting to read down then up. :D This thread would have made more sense under that clarifying response. Reading that, I suspect my guess was fairly accurate? They were somewhat more effective than a lot of others we discuss on not just killing people, but effectively erasing their existence in the process.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I see what you mean, and maybe that's what they were getting at after all. Still I think it gets into a history vs historiography thing. If something makes it hard to reconstruct what happened around it in history, was that thing necessarily bad? It certainly makes life harder for historians. My understanding of history as a professional discipline is that historians mostly try to excise value judgements like this from their practice. Individuals are free to feel how they feel about past events, but historians trying to understand and accurately place those events into context are not. To a historian the question of rehabilitating the mongol khanates should have no meaning, because they were never "dehabilitated" in the first place. They were simply a thing that we used to know slightly less about (partly because of their own actions!), and now can see a little more clearly.
    - taeric 3y ago
      I think there is a subtlety there. Historians would not necessarily hold ancient people to modern standards. That said, they do not have to ignore their impact on others and can take aim at not holding some practices in good terms. Consider, do we look neutrally on infanticide? Now, granted, this does seem to largely be a "western" thing? We are more than willing to criticize our roots and ancestors. It does seem that this is getting silly where our willingness to discuss "bad" things in our history has blinded a lot of people into thinking that other cultures do not have similar items they needed to grow from. As an easy example, it is baffling to me how slavery and minority oppression is largely viewed as a US thing. Edit: Consider, we would accurately call the practices described as genocidal. You can say that neutrally, sure, but I don't think any modern person should aspire for a genocidal society?

harimau777 3y ago

That's only the case if an ideological view of history is wrong; which is certainly one way to approach history. However, there's nothing to say that approach is inherently correct.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Yes I am assuming an ideological view of history is "wrong," as do almost all working historians. Nothing is "inherently correct" in this domain, historians subscribe to this model because it is most generally useful for their purposes. Ideological history is most useful for purposes other than strict historiography. Notably and notoriously propaganda lol. What are you getting at here?
concordDance 3y ago
Given that ideology can be quite corrosive to truth (selection effects on transmission of information will distort things and that's just one of the effects), an approach that tries to avoid ideology is likely to get a more accurate view of the past.