2 ms·
People write about history through the lens of their specialty and personal interests, which is what the author of the underlying article was doing when they pu
by swatcoder 2y ago
People write about history through the lens of their specialty and personal interests, which is what the author of the underlying article was doing when they published in their academic journal, Southern Culture. The author has a lot of insight and foreknowledge into their field of expertise and can situate this story within that context better than others can, and more deeply (probably) than they could do in some other context.
It's pretty normal, and helps develop a lot of different perspectives on history so that the bigger picture can be understood in a lot of different ways.
It's fair to call it out, but it's not going anywhere and it's not really a problem in the writing. Taking this history and reconciling it with other accounts is a reader literacy thing.
You should take a similar eye to pretty much all history you run across.
- dissent 2y agoThis is all well and good, except we all know the current zeitgeist is to go to any length necessary to frame absolutely everything in terms of race. As a reader, it's hard to distinguish between that and genuine academic interest. I now tend to close the tab the moment race is mentioned. I'm glad I don't live in the USA, it must be awful.
- Spooky23 2y agoOne of the core concepts used to push anti-marijuana campaigns was that marijuana would enable black men to seduce innocent young white woman, and create a mixed race. That message was being pushed at a time where the US Senate, controlled by Jim Crow southerners, killed legislation making lynching a federal crime for 50 years. A common pretext for lynching was for a black man to be accused of having sex with, or talking to, a white woman.