Historical Revisionists

[Vitriol]

Did Grand Galactic Jay take his geographic understanding of Bohemia's location from Shakespeare?

or Queen?

 

[Dudeofteenage]

I dunno, it's definitely possible you would see non-white people in 15th century Bohemia. Prague was a major political and economic centre so there'd be traders, diplomats, scholars etc etc. Any historian who found that concept laughable is not a very good historian.

I don't know if there would be so many that you could predict somebody traveling through the area would definitely see one, though.

 

[Gensdupays]

It pisses me off that people do stuff like this because this is the career path that I'm trying to get into. I've admittedly only done a limited amount of reading on the subject, but I have been in classes where people brought up the subject of blacks in Europe. Basically, from what I've heard/read, the only blacks that would have been in Western Europe for a considerable portion of time would have been "servants" of the uber-rich essentially as a "Look how rich I am, I can afford black servants from Africa despite being in Bohemia" thing. A status symbol.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Basically, from what I've heard/read, the only blacks that would have been in Western Europe for a considerable portion of time would have been "servants" of the uber-rich essentially as a "Look how rich I am, I can afford black servants from Africa despite being in Bohemia" thing. A status symbol.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. You'd have definitely been able to find black people outside of the servant class.

 

[PantsOfDesire]

David Barton is worth a look. He's a conservative evangelical pseudo-historian famed for his amazing ability to rearrange history to suit his agenda.

If Barton were to shift gears, exchanging his esoteric religious beliefs for the console wars, be in no doubt that Barton could provide quotes of Jefferson and Paine expressing a preference for the Sony Playstation. I'm surprised the History Channel hasn't already offered him a show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)#The_Jefferson_Lies_withdrawn_from_publication

 

[Foltest]

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. You'd have definitely been able to find black people outside of the servant class.

It is a possibility, but then it would have been mostly diplomats. And then they would have stayed in the big cities and would not have been so many.

 

[Gensdupays]

It is a possibility, but then it would have been mostly diplomats. And then they would have stayed in the big cities and would not have been so many.

And of course it would have been different as you moved East/South. But rural Bohemia? Probably not unless a servant like I mentioned.

 

[Vitriol]

so imperialism was a complex and controversial phenomenon the full effects of which we still haven't seen the end of, naturally tumblr handles it maturely.

from the now deleted Whyamievensurprisednow:

The filthiness of white Europeans and the diseases they carried were basically the real reason they were able to take over so much of the world so quickly." Am I the only one bothered by tumblr's lack of love & knowledge of history? The reason why there are very little European descent people in Africa is because they'd die in that continent. So much for superior European diseases. People evolved to different continent specific maladies. Period.

nothing to do with better technology, medicine and economy or clever manipulation of local politics just that whitey doesn't wash.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

It is a possibility, but then it would have been mostly diplomats. And then they would have stayed in the big cities and would not have been so many.

Diplomats, or mercenaries, or traders. But yes, mostly in big cities, and more likely in southern Europe than northern... although in a big northern city like Copenhagen or London there'd have been quite a few.

I think it's important not to create a countermyth of a racially 'pure' medieval Europe, though.

 

[sugoi-chan]

so imperialism was a complex and controversial phenomenon the full effects of which we still haven't seen the end of, naturally tumblr handles it maturely.

from the now deleted Whyamievensurprisednow:

What is acquired immunity from trading and intermingling between European and African societies for centuries prior to the colonial period, let alone the Scramble? Also, is this person intentionally forgetting South Africa, a nation where a large portion of the population can be traced back to European colonists?

 

[Foltest]

And of course it would have been different as you moved East/South. But rural Bohemia? Probably not unless a servant like I mentioned.

And even then, even then, it would be 1:10000. Also, I don't believe that african mercs would be in northern Europa or central. It is too far away. Why hire a bunch of african mercs, when you can hire mercs that are much closer? Remember, it took way longer at that time to travel.

 

[Vitriol]

What is acquired immunity from trading and intermingling between European and African societies for centuries prior to the colonial period?

no idea mate and i presume that the horrendous attrition rate of British troops in the tropics was purely because they kept getting heatstroke! nothing to do with malaria, or typhoid or yellow fever .

 

[Dudeofteenage]

And even then, even then, it would be 1:10000. Also, I don't believe that african mercs would be in northern Europa or central. It is too far away. Why hire a bunch of african mercs, when you can hire mercs that are much closer? Remember, it took way longer at that time to travel.

There were definitely black mercenaries in the Imperial army during the Thirty Years War. Most military recruitment was extremely opportunistic - it wasn't so much European rulers going all the way to Africa, hiring some guys, and bringing them back; it was more a matter of professional soldiers on their own initiative going to areas where there was conflict to try and find work, usually individually or in small groups.

 

[Gensdupays]

And even then, even then, it would be 1:10000. Also, I don't believe that african mercs would be in northern Europa or central. It is too far away. Why hire a bunch of african mercs, when you can hire mercs that are much closer? Remember, it took way longer at that time to travel.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about hiring some Moors or Turks, I'm talking about sub-Saharan Africans which would have been extremely, extremely rare in Europe, to the point where they would not be living a free life or treated as normal even in the biggest cities.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Keep in mind I'm not talking about hiring some Moors or Turks, I'm talking about sub-Saharan Africans which would have been extremely, extremely rare in Europe, to the point where they would not be living a free life or treated as normal even in the biggest cities.

What do you mean by "they would not be living a free life"?

 

[AveraDiane]

The idea of medievalpoc was an interesting concept, but it was disheartening to find that it was used to further the SJW agenda of 'perfect PoC vs evil white people'.

Also, what about LGBT history? Yhe gay rights activist Larry Kramer claims that Washington and Lincoln were gay. It's interesting to think about, but I am quite skeptical about it.

http://gayhistoryproject.epgn.com/h...ashington-gay-friendly-father-of-our-country/

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/26...yguard-another-look-at?rgn=main;view=fulltext

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Also, what about LGBT history? Yhe gay rights activist Larry Kramer claims that Washington and Lincoln were gay. It's interesting to think about, but I am quite skeptical about it.

I question the value of this kind of thing, but to me it doesn't quite qualify as revisionist history, since it's not really overturning clearly established historical facts. We know almost nothing about Lincoln or Washington's sex lives, so the theory that they were closeted gay men is kind of impossible to disprove, although it's also impossible to prove. It's not really very valuable, but it's more groundless speculation than actual revisionism.

 

[Vitriol]

@Meowthkip nothing on yet but I've a week long queue set up:

http://medievalmonkeys.tumblr.com/

so you can learn all about how monkeys have been whitewashed out of history!

 

[sugoi-chan]

Also, what about LGBT history? Yhe gay rights activist Larry Kramer claims that Washington and Lincoln were gay. It's interesting to think about, but I am quite skeptical about it.

Washington? No, not in the slightest. While his marriage to Martha was pretty passionless by contemporary accounts, he was madly in love with Sally Fairfax, a crush that was kind of a widely-known secret among Virginia planter society. He was also a notorious flirt and carried on racy (by 18th century standards at least) correspondences with women throughout his life. The article linked there, of course, makes no mention of this. Just his seemingly frosty relationship with Martha (which could be more considered to be a marriage of intellectual equals than anything. They were in love with one another, but it was a different kind of love than what he had for Sally). The article seems to be pointing out this fact and then using that to cast a suspicious light on his close relationships with his proteges, like Hamilton and Lafeyette. Yes, they were exceptionally close but Washington considered them to be the sons he never had (given that his adopted son was a wastrel and he had none of his own). He was also a very family loving man and so encouraged his close advisors to treat him as though he was a father figure because that's how a man like that deals with years and years suffering through trial and torment away from the home he loved.

Washington wasn't gay. He may have been gay friendly (I have no knowledge of the claims the author makes as towards his actions towards same-sex affairs) but we also have to remember to not cast modern conceptions of sexuality onto a period where interpersonal relationships were very very different.

As far as Lincoln goes, I don't know enough about his life to deny. I know the rumors exist, but I also know he was married and had a bunch of kids. So, again, this may be another example of looking through the past with a modern lens.

It's interesting that people who search for gay presidents (I don't doubt that, in 43 presidents there have been more than one who were into dudes), none seem to mention James Buchanan who had a really, really close relationship with a male companion and never married.

Larry Kramer is a good writer and, during the midst of the AIDS crisis, he had one of the firmest grasps on the issues facing the gay community. The Normal Heart was an amazing play, and he was the voice of clarity and sensibility needed at the time - but his grasp on history seems to be a bit suspect.

 

[Bucharest]

Ohhhh golly. I've not had to deal with a lot of internet revisionists, save for the garden variety civil war "Lost Cause" guy that pops up on any forum that bothers to even mention 1860s America. But to answer to some earlier commenters worrying about absolute junk revisionism getting into mainstream public (elementary and secondary) education, I think I can add some reassurance from my own experience. I've obtained a Master's in history and am currently working on a secondary teaching certificate.

Most of the real nonsense-spewers crop up in the Bachelor's area, and then quickly disappear when they get torn apart in their junior/senior (3rd/4th year ) level courses. Because they can't find any real research to back up their claims their professors gently, but forcefully, inform them they're idiots and mark them down. Or, if this doesn't happen, they end up getting cordial little ass-pats from some adjunct and they attempt to apply to a grad program- only to be turned down without so much a 'thank you': generally because they prove they can't research or argue a case worth shit.

Now, that's not saying it always happens they get shut down in this area- a lot of times you'll find one or two revisionist dimwits who've managed an advanced degree- often from a southern college or university (stereotypes exist for a reason). Or, like someone earlier said, they don't actually go into the history department, but pursue a degree in "African" or "Women's" studies, where the national/international standards are far more relaxed. Now, some parts of the aforementioned fields are very important and have given insights into areas that would previously been unexplored--but there are a lot of departments around the world that only help to prove the field to be a holding pen for bargain-rate academics.

And, of course, sometimes you will get a nut with a shitty argument into a serious academic department. When I was in grad school, one shithead in my cohort was actively trying to argue in his MA thesis that "Austria (after the Anschluss and during WWII) demonstrated a racism that would be considered positive to today's standards." His proposition seminar and explanation was so poorly constructed and catastrophically demonstrated that our preceptor actually became physically ill, and several members of the cohort actually stood up and told him to drop out of the program. In the end, he was allowed to proceed with his project- but was informed that he would not be allowed to use any of his professors or advisers from the university as references when/if he applied for doctoral programs. The point being: often when someone comes up with the batshit insane arguments as shown in this thread, when they do manage to squeak into a serious academic circle it's often thrashed to death or relegated to the back shelf of "ideas worth a chuckle".

When it comes to this revisionism reaching the wider public education sector, it's more of a matter of what textbooks these teachers are allowed to use. Again, stereotypes exist for a reason: there's really two types of teachers who go into public schooling- those in it just for a stable career ("I really wanted to be a coach" types), and those that will expand from the textbook- and they're the ones willing to put in extra time to do real research. Textbook companies are really only in it for the money, and they're going to stick with the most vanilla, public-satisfying discourse so they don't have to deal with fifty interest groups a day beating down their door. Therefore, the first type, the "sit and read the book" type, isn't going to veer far from it (if at all). The second type will veer away- but in order to save their hash (getting excessesed is SUPER easy these days) what they'll add to the discussion is still generally going to be politically correct and verifiable.

So, that's my two cents on it. You can take it and buy... well, you can't even buy a decent cup of coffee anymore, but it's the thought that counts.