4 ms·

> the author puts politics in an article about history and archaeology That's a very "end of history" level of understanding of history and archaelogy. History

by hnbad 2y ago

> the author puts politics in an article about history and archaeology That's a very "end of history" level of understanding of history and archaelogy. History is inherently political because it's shaped by our own politics as much as it is a study of the politics of the past. Even if we don't do it explicitly, we look at history through the lens of our present with all the baggage that means. And it can help reflect on similar situations in the present to learn both how humans handled those situations in the past and how that worked out. > and does it poorly to boot That I'm willing to agree on. It does seem apropos of nothing and very hamfisted even if I may agree with the author's general message. I think the problem is actually greater than you say: even the concept of "foreigners" vs "citizens" doesn't translate well as Rome distinguished between foreigners, residents and citizens differently than we do today and "race" didn't exist as a meaningful distinction in the same way. Even the nuances of the differences between different foreign "nations" worked differently so the concept of refugees doesn't really translate all that well to begin with.

wslh 2y ago
> That's a very "end of history" level of understanding of history and archaelogy. No, yours is a kind of fallacy and called Presentism [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysi...
- hnbad 2y ago
  Did you read my comment? Or the article you linked? I'm genuinely asking because I literally stated the opposite of presentism: > I think the problem is actually greater than you say: even the concept of "foreigners" vs "citizens" doesn't translate well as Rome distinguished between foreigners, residents and citizens differently than we do today and "race" didn't exist as a meaningful distinction in the same way. Even the nuances of the differences between different foreign "nations" worked differently so the concept of refugees doesn't really translate all that well to begin with. Where you seem to disagree is that history is inherently political, which isn't "a fallacy and called presentism" but is literally calling attention to presentism. Presentism has been widespread in historical analysis throughout much of history. This is obvious in hindsight. What is less obvious is that we still engage in it today even when we think we don't. The mere notion that presentism is even a thing is a relatively recent development (relative to the field of history as a whole) and that it should be avoided is in itself a political decision (i.e. the decision to try to avoid political bias is in itself informed by politics).

by hnbad 2y ago

wslh 2y ago

> That's a very "end of history" level of understanding of history and archaelogy. No, yours is a kind of fallacy and called Presentism [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysi...

hnbad 2y ago
Did you read my comment? Or the article you linked? I'm genuinely asking because I literally stated the opposite of presentism: > I think the problem is actually greater than you say: even the concept of "foreigners" vs "citizens" doesn't translate well as Rome distinguished between foreigners, residents and citizens differently than we do today and "race" didn't exist as a meaningful distinction in the same way. Even the nuances of the differences between different foreign "nations" worked differently so the concept of refugees doesn't really translate all that well to begin with. Where you seem to disagree is that history is inherently political, which isn't "a fallacy and called presentism" but is literally calling attention to presentism. Presentism has been widespread in historical analysis throughout much of history. This is obvious in hindsight. What is less obvious is that we still engage in it today even when we think we don't. The mere notion that presentism is even a thing is a relatively recent development (relative to the field of history as a whole) and that it should be avoided is in itself a political decision (i.e. the decision to try to avoid political bias is in itself informed by politics).