/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12292176]

Why did /lit/ hate this book so much?

[Anonymous No.12292178]

>Mary

[Anonymous No.12292186]

>>12292178
Umm, it's Mary BEARD. How much manlier can it get?

[Anonymous No.12292227]

There's some baseless conjecture mingled with contemporary ideological and political reference. It's exactly what you would expect from a feminist history. If you want to learn about Rome you should start with some of the classics. Livy is a really good writer.

[Anonymous No.12292274]

>>12292176
Steeped in liberal feminist ideology, which is poison to the true Roman soul.

[Anonymous No.12292745]

>>12292227
>If you want to learn about Rome you should start with some of the classics. Livy is a really good writer.
Ah yes, Rome was founded by two brothers raised by a wolf. It's true because Livy said it. Sure, their historians are entertaining but to start with them without any previous knowledge with the goal to be to learn accurate history is laughably stupid.

[Anonymous No.12292752]

>>12292745
>he thinks objective history exists
i remember when i was just starting my bachelors

[Anonymous No.12292777]

>>12292752
>there's no such thing as objective history therefore every single history book every written is equally correct
I also never said anything about objective history. I said accurate, as in on a spectrum, not in absolutes.

[Anonymous No.12292786]

>>12292227
lmao fag

[« ƸЖƷ » No.12292821]

>>12292227
I read Scullard, and hated his snide Christian Tory slants the whole way. If that’s all there is, I’d say this book is fine.

[Anonymous No.12293125]

>>12292821
This book is not fine. She smears her modern perspective all over the book. She complains how women were oppressed and then at the same states how women had to birth an average of 9 children JUST TO MAINTAIN THE POPULATION. Not to mention the odds of a woman dying in childbirth which was around 1 in 50 or so (I believe that's the figure she gives). Romans were even progressive at the time relative to other civilizations, for example the Greeks who kept their women indoors away from men.

[Anonymous No.12293458]

seething ideologues who never studied classics or history but enjoy feeling superior to women

[Anonymous No.12293468]

>>12293125
1 in 50 is way too low

[Anonymous No.12294222]

>>12293458
being*

[Anonymous No.12294259]

>>12293458
pretty much this

[Anonymous No.12294350]

>>12292745
This modernist objection to ancient histories is about the most absurd thing there is. When I first approach learning the history of a people my first step is to find out what they themselves thought. Livy doesn't think two brothers were raised by a wolf and this is made clear when he acknowledged it as a myth and it's made even clearer when he starts book VI stating that from here on his sources are better and more reliable.

[Anonymous No.12294460]

>>12292274
A true man is not scared to cut off the venom toxica that is the male penis and summit to goodwomen once a while. Read SCUM now, you pathetic excuse for a man.

[Anonymous No.12294505]

>>12292821
Namefag opinion disregarded.

[Anonymous No.12294508]

>>12292178
came to post this

[Anonymous No.12294509]

>>12292176
>written by a feminist
>approved by the New York Times
Even I know it's shit, and I've only looked at the cover.

[Anonymous No.12294518]

Won't somebody please think of the women?!

[Anonymous No.12294528]

This is the best introduction to Ancient Rome

[Anonymous No.12294886]

She's more interested in sociology

[Anonymous No.12296382]

Boy this book got /lit/ mad. I'm going to read it anyways. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.12296399]

>>12292752
>criticizes on the basis of accuracy
>when confronted about the inaccuracy of his own recommendation immediately shifts goalposts and throws snide insults

[Anonymous No.12296408]

>>12293458
correct

[Anonymous No.12296424]

What other history books get /lit/ really RILED UP and FUMING? I want to read some of them.

[Anonymous No.12296426]

>>12296382
>Hey /lit/ tell me why you don't like this book
>Wow this thread suddenly is filled with people who don't like this book

Imagine that.

[Anonymous No.12296451]

>>12296424
Probably A People's History of the United States, Guns, Germs and Steel, etc.

[Anonymous No.12296522]

>>12294350
>When I first approach learning the history of a people my first step is to find out what they themselves thought
This is fine if you want that sort of perspective on them. However you said before that you SHOULD start this way.
>If you want to learn about Rome you should start with some of the classics
This doesn't even have to be history. It could be extrapolated to I want to learn about Rome so I'll go read Catullus for an inside look. This is valid and useful but not if you want an understanding of their history. It's the same with reading their historians.

[Anonymous No.12296598]

>>12292821
>namefag

[Anonymous No.12296658]

>>12293458
Centum per centum. /litpol/ can't abide challenges to its ideology, especially w/r/t Classics. Too many younguns here rely on a fabricated and uncomplicated sense of Rome as their white racial authoritarian ancestor without actually ever bothering to study the history they pretend is their identity.

You should have seen /pollit/ sobbing over D. Zuckerburg's latest that explains how idiots online buy into simplifications of history and classics to firm up their own misogynistic and simplistic white natl ideology

[Anonymous No.12296675]

When doing history you should start with his-story before getting their-story. Meaning you start with the sources before going to the commentators which is what contemporary historians are. If you think the inclusion of Romulus and Remus invalidates Livy as a credible historian then you should exclude nearly every contemporary Roman historian, including Mary Beard since they include it as part of the story.

I like how you don't even touch on the fact that Livy acknowledges when he feels the sources for his record is weak or a likely myth. It's almost as if you haven't read it, and how are you supposed to even know what's real and what's myth if you don't read the thing in the first place? You're relying on commentators to do all of your thinking.

[Anonymous No.12296680]

>>12296675
Meant for>>12296522

[Anonymous No.12297052]

We wuz roman emperors an shit

[Anonymous No.12297584]

>>12292745
Livy literally calls the story of Romulus and Remus a myth you meme

[Anonymous No.12297712]

>>12296675
>Meaning you start with the sources
This assumes that the person in question wants to spend a lot of time and to read a lot of books. If someone asked me if they wanted to read a single book on Roman history I wouldn't recommend Livy because you would have no measure to judge the accuracy of events outside of Livy. Who is going to know more about the early history of Rome, the person who only reads Livy or the person who reads a reputable modern book? The answer is obvious.

>before going to the commentators which is what contemporary historians are
Yes they are commentators. Commentators who have access to all available primary works with a tradition of commentary to work with, who have access to linguistic, genetic, archaeological and environmental information that was completely foreign to any primary source. They are quite simply more accurate than Livy even about the elements in which Livy is to be most trusted.

>When doing history you should start with his-story before getting their-story
It really comes down to this. If you wanted to read a single book which provides a reasonably accurate understanding of some stretch of Roman history that is written for a lay person you read something contemporary. If you want to see what Romans of the reign of Augustus thought about themselves and their history then you read Livy. They are both commendable but they are different.
You are just making a blanket assertion that it's best for all people to start with unreliable old sources and before moving on to modern stuff. That assertion only works IF the person in question is wanting to read multiple books AND that they actually care about what the Romans thought of themselves. It's like saying you can't read a modern book on Greek history without reading Homer because he is just an integral element to Greek culture as well as acting as a pseudo-history.

>if you don't read the thing in the first place
I haven't read it in over ten years. Being wrong about the way he frames the very early history doesn't effect any of my other points.

[Anonymous No.12297726]

>>12297712
You don't need to write so mich just say you're too lazy and intellectually limp and need to be spoonfed.

[Anonymous No.12297732]

We was legionarius

[Anonymous No.12297793]

>>12294460
What? Nothing more pathetic than submitting to a woman, why do you think the Romans thought practicing oral sex on women was the faggiest shit?

[Anonymous No.12297847]

>>12292178
fag

[Anonymous No.12297856]

if this woman is retarded enough to get btfo by taleb, then why would her book be even worthy of mention

[Anonymous No.12297869]

>>12293125
>for example the Greeks who kept their women indoors away from men.
This is kind of a sensible method desu, prevents any risk of them being unfaithful.
>tfw you realize how much of history revolves around men's fear of getting cucked

[Anonymous No.12298196]

Mary Beard has contributed to the Western Canon at a time when its anemic from all the lazy know-nothing pseuds that dominate our discourses.

[Anonymous No.12298304]

I'm 70 pages into this book and it's not bad

Thanks /lit/

[Anonymous No.12298944]

>>12292821
Check this shit

[Anonymous No.12298953]

>>12298196
based and redpilled. we need to start mass raping bitches again i agree

[Anonymous No.12299027]

>>12292176

[Anonymous No.12299157]

>>12294528
Any idea where I can find the digital version of this? Libgen, b-ok turn nothing

[Anonymous No.12299169]

>>12292752
>he thinks all histories are equally valid
Damn, either you're still just starting your Bachelor's or it really didn't do much for you

[Anonymous No.12299192]

>>12296675
>When doing history you should start with his-story before getting their-story. Meaning you start with the sources
That's ridiculous. Even with Roman history there must be bookshelves worth of extant sources out there. And how does this apply to more recent history? Shut yourself in archives for a few lifetimes before you're ready to read about the Victorians?

[Anonymous No.12299199]

I've watched several documentaries on Rome with Beard as the "host" but none of them were remotely feminist in any way. Has she really changed that much or? What exactly makes this book "feminist propaganda" (for a lack of better words)?

[Anonymous No.12299243]

>>12292176
anglo revisionist shit

[Anonymous No.12299250]

>>12292176

about a third of the way through it
her "modern" feminist take on everything gets old fast
you're forced to see Rome through this lens

the best analogy of what this is like is that one second your reading along
you're imagining life as a Roman and all the complexity that entails
when suddenly (and quite jarringly) the author slams on the breaks
abruptly snapping you out of your imagination
only to say something daft like
"us civilized modern people think rape is bad but Rome seemed to revel in it"
or
"the five elites i just mentioned are representative of all men in Rome and they had so much power...
but the wives of paupers had no power whatsoever, this is quite troubling to my sensibilities"
it's not quite this extreme but you get the point

[Anonymous No.12299318]

>>12299199
It being feminist is just a meme. Reads like any other competent pop-history book.

[Anonymous No.12299345]

>>12299250
cont.
i even remember a part where she basically insults Livy for having a distorted lens and bias
only to say this completely justifies her having one which she shouldn't make an effort to rid of
contrary to what you would think would be the best course after criticizing other historians bias,
she proceeds to interject hers any and every time she possibly can

[Anonymous No.12299355]

>>12292176
Isn't she the lady that tried to say that ancient Britain was full of black people?

[Anonymous No.12299489]

>>12299199
>What exactly makes this book "feminist propaganda" (for a lack of better words)?
You're dealing with /pollit/ here, friend. The fact that it's written by a women is bad enough for them- to add to that, parts of her book do indeed discuss the status of 50% of the population.

(Of course, and as you'd expect, she is actually a feminist- she released a short 'manifesto' this year IIRC)

[Anonymous No.12299508]

>>12299243
I never get why 'revisionist' is a negative word in history. Afaik it was a Marxist insult originally, used in particularly stupid revolutionary contexts where if you don't uphold the ideology you get shot.

The whole point of scholarship is to 'revise' previous understandings- you'd have no need to write a book saying 'Yup, Plutarch was right'.

[Anonymous No.12299517]

Why are women so insecure?

[Anonymous No.12299519]

>>12299355
No, she said that (a) Roman Britain had a diverse population (true, unless your brain is on /pol/ and you can only interpret the word 'diverse' as meaning 'full of Africans') and (b) it's entirely possible that there were Africans in Roman Britain.

[Anonymous No.12299661]

imma read this book fuck /pollit/

[Anonymous No.12299700]

>>12299508
It's all about contriving the facts so they fit currently accepted moral narratives for political purposes

[Anonymous No.12299715]

>>12299508
>>12299700
Historical facts are stable and unchangeable, and are represented by material knowledge such as documents of the time and art, sculpture, etc. Any derivative unfounded choice is revisionist, ideologically fueled and untrue until the contrary is proven (through materials)

[Anonymous No.12299748]

>>12299519
But she said this in response to media that depicted a very high concentration of africans. Seemed very very dishonest desu.

[Anonymous No.12299904]

>>12297869
That's the thing. If we actually lived in a tyrannical patriarchy, things would remain that way. Women would have never been given rights to vote or property if western society didn't slowly allow them too. Now, most women complain about "the patriarchy" when they pretty much owe their male ancestors everything.

[Anonymous No.12300234]

>>12292176
/pol/ immigrants. It wasn't amazing but it was good.

[Anonymous No.12300253]

>this is the queen of /lit/

[Anonymous No.12300277]

>>12300253
Kek there have been plenty of matriarchies in history they just well... sucked

[Anonymous No.12300364]

2 reasons. 1) Mary Beard is a woman and an academic. /Pollit/ is terrified of women in any position of authority, especially over things so fundamental to their imaginary identity (e.g. antiquity; see also constant threads here about feminine inferiority in literature, etc)

2) and more importantly: the BBC aired a cartoon depicting a dark skinned Roman legionaire in Roman Britian. We have a number of ancient sources attesting to such practice, and so when children on Twitter yelled about muh ess jay dubyaws ruining history, Mary Beard pointed out the cartoon was plausible and the Twitter rioters were, in fact, idiots. Imagine /pollit/'s sheer terror.

[Anonymous No.12300608]

>>12299748
See >>12300364

It was an image of a single dude, not a 'high concentration'.

[Anonymous No.12300671]

>>12299715
>historical facts are stable and unchangeable
puellae_ridentes.imago

[Anonymous No.12300685]

>>12292745
Gotta read between the lines. In Latin, the word for 'wolf', is the same word for 'prostitute'

[Anonymous No.12300720]

>>12299192
Agreed. Contemporary books which give an overview are just fine to read first, then you can deliver deeper into primary sources if you want to really know more. Only reading primary sources is another pseud idea that /lit/ likes to pretend they adhere to, like only reading in the original languages. You're telling me that you know Greek, Latin, french, old English, German, Spanish and Italian - and have a mastery over them that allows you to admire the poetics and intricacies of the language?

[Anonymous No.12300751]

>>12292176
wait really fuck i just got it for christmas

[Anonymous No.12300755]

>>12292176
Didn't Nassim Taleb absolutely BTFO Mary Beard and this book?

[Anonymous No.12300805]

>>12300364
I'm not /pol, but honestly, stuff like this annoys the shit out of me. It's one thing to argue the ancient world was slightly more diverse than some might think or point to a figure from Homeric mythology like Memnon, who was an Ethiopian, or Septimius Severus, an actual Roman emperor of Libyan descent. But these people can never stop there. They always have to try to argue the ancient Greeks and Romans weren't really white (we know for a fact that they were racially Caucasian Mediterranean peoples not unlike Greeks and Italians today, this isn't controversial) or grossly exaggerate the level of diversity that could have conceivably existed in these regions (any culture before the airplane/steamship/etc. is going reasonably ethnically homogeneous). These people clearly have an agenda of brown washing history because they have fucked up paternalistic white man's burden ideas about non-whites, and they find the idea that white people did a lot of great things to be problematic. At some point, you do have to have a spine and tell them to fuck off or else you actually are sort of a cuck.

Shit like this makes me want to rip out my hair:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/the-myth-of-whiteness-in-classical-sculpture

This dumb bitch uses extremely retarded and circuitous reasoning to try to argue, against all logic, that because ancient Romes painted their statues (as phenotypically Caucasian no less), this somehow means we have to reevaluate our notions of the Greeks and Romans as being white or whatever, and it's therefore not absurd to for the BBC to portray Julius Caesar or Achilles as black. These people will say anything. They don't care about logic or reason. They know they can spout whatever ridiculous, ahistorical shit they want, and they can always count on the stupidity of their audience to go along with it. And of course they can always count on someone to publish it.

[Anonymous No.12300833]

>>12300253
It stupefies me how fucking self-obsessed women are. Seriously, the majority of their writing has some correlation to their vagina or their insecurities.

Women were a mistake

[Anonymous No.12300845]

It's not bad for an intro to ancient Rome but a lot of the complaints in this thread are valid. I read it and moved on.

[Anonymous No.12300848]

>>12296424
>>12296451
Also using Gibbons as a sole source of information

[Anonymous No.12300985]

>>12300755
>Taleb
>BFTOing anyone
His books were bad enough; his writing without an editor is unbearable.

[Anonymous No.12300987]

>>12300805
no, actually she says that because the paint peeled off and everything that was left is white marble this can be used to popularie the myth of white supremacy

read the fucking article you linked you brainlet

[Anonymous No.12301007]

>>12300987
Expecting /pol/ to read is a fool's endeavor. They lack the skills to realize how dumb they actually are.

[Anonymous No.12301144]

>>12300985
>t. IYI
so did you look at his arguments against Mary Beard or nah?

[Anonymous No.12301197]

>>12299169
They literally are, non-history major-kun.

Allow me to save you the crueling effort from formalizing following counter point yourself:
>Oh so if I claim the holocaust never happened it's as valid as a thoroughly researched book on it?
No, it's not. Not because of the content of the claim, but because of the lack of evidence backing it. If you produce more compelling evidence/justification/reasoning than the book in question, your version of the history becomes as valid - or more so - than it.

God what a waste of time, why do I even reply to brainlets?

[Anonymous No.12301207]

>>12301197
Grueling even

[Anonymous No.12301237]

>>12300987
That's basically the same thing I said. Your reading comprehension is shit.

Anyway, what is the logical connection between the two things? How does painted = non-white? They were painted as white people. Look at the pictures. Regardless, people didn't see them as white purely because the statues were white marble. We see them as white because their features are clearly phenotypically white, and basic knowledge of the region and its history would suggest this. The article is nothing but a bunch of random tidbits that don't prove her point and have nothing to do with the statues being painted, and then a weird ass extrapolation that this new knowledge that the statues were painted should shift our understanding of the ancient world and race. This would be coherently if there were reason to believe they were painted to look like black people or something, but they weren't, so it's utter nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12301246]

>>12301197
>all histories literally are equally valid
>but I'll cleverly pre-empt you pointing out that this is obviously false by saying that they can be more or less compelling and therefore more or less valid
Er... thanks, anon. I'm sure whatever you're trying to do makes sense in your head, and that's what counts.

[Anonymous No.12301252]

>>12300987
>no, actually she says that because the paint peeled off and everything that was left is white marble this can be used to popularie the myth of white supremacy

lmao fucking how? wouldn't pic related reinforce white supremacy if anything? i'll never understand the minds of roasties.

[Anonymous No.12301267]

>>12300751
Read it anyways, but it is a slog. It's fairly easy to discern whenever she "applies her own perspective" on things.

[Anonymous No.12301274]

>>12301252
No anon they were painted brown!

[Anonymous No.12301320]

>>12300755
>>12300985
>>12301144
https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/the-insidious-racism-of-mary-beard-et-al-8b6b768b4575

Why don't just you post the article in question?

[Anonymous No.12301664]

>>12300685
ehhh. Lupa is often used metaphorically to mean prostitute but thats not the most common word for prostitute at all. stretch.

[Anonymous No.12301747]

>>12301252
I'll never understand why these reconstructions don't use shading. From a fucking beautiful sculpture to a trainwreck in color

[Anonymous No.12301777]

>>12301664
>Some think that Larentia, having been free with her favours, had got the name of “she-wolf” among the shepherds, and that this gave rise to this marvellous story.
- literally Livy

[Anonymous No.12302116]

>>12299192
Not really Livy, Polybius, Sallust, some Cassius Dio, Caesar, Tacitus, then Gibbon bk. 1/2 (because he really just reworks narrative sources) cover it well, worthless writing doesn't keep getting copied. Even the most woke revisionist take is still based on the sources so just use your brain to dissect it like they do. Mary Beard is apparently very good but there is no reason to be reading popular history books when academic works are so easy to access.

Ye the approach wont really work for modern history but from a literature and enjoyment perspective I think it is still fine for antiquity.

[Anonymous No.12302126]

>>12301320
>Please stop classifying people according to race, and stop creating racial stereotypes and divisions in the name of “diversity”, while doing some smug virtue signaling. Look up “framing” in a decision theory textbook and you can see what I mean. This is no different from funding Al Qaeda headcutters and women-enslavers in Syria in the name of “democracy”.

kek

[Anonymous No.12302175]

>>12302116
>Even the most woke revisionist take is still based on the sources
As I said earlier we have invented brand new ways of understanding the past such as the fields of archeology, climate science, genetic studies, linguistics, anthropology etc. Modern historians have far more tools than just texts. Look at our understanding of per-dynastic Egypt. It's a very fast moving field with almost all of the changes coming from archeological evidence rather than textual. To only read classical texts is to enormously limit your ability to understand the very thing you want to look into.

[Anonymous No.12302241]

>>12292176
If not this book then where to start with Roman history?

[Anonymous No.12302272]

>>12300364
> and more importantly: the BBC aired a cartoon depicting a dark skinned Roman legionaire in Roman Britian.
That's not what they did

[Anonymous No.12302293]

>>12302241
HBO's Rome like everyone else

[Anonymous No.12302333]

>>12296658
It's colonialism to allow a Jew to comment on European history. Racism is prejudice + power.

[Anonymous No.12302726]

>>12302241
Livy. Read the thread.

[Anonymous No.12302770]

>>12302175
Good point especially for Egypt where the primary literature is so sparse I did recommend reading academic writing as well. Still I think you are going to far the other way, when you read a classical piece of history you are directly in contact with the thought of a member of that society and the fact that the work has been preserved at all is normally a testament it's literary value and wider insight (into the human condition, politics whatever) you lose out on this with secondary texts. Realistically I would happily sacrifice every contribution cultural studies and anthropology have made to history for the rest of Tacitus. Would you give up the Story of Sinuhe and Manetho in exchange for all the; "brand new ways of understanding the past" these fields have contribute to Egyptian history? Seems obvious that the texts are paramount and losing out on the theoretical baggage of modern history is often liberating rather limiting. (Archeology is fucking boring but essential to actual history obviously)

[Anonymous No.12303713]

>>12302333
>disagrees with leftists
>posts leftist ideas to make a point

weird

[Anonymous No.12304624]

>>12301197
>this is your academically indoctrinated brain

seek help

[Anonymous No.12304846]

>>12297712
>It's like saying you can't read a modern book on Greek history without reading Homer because he is just an integral element to Greek culture as well as acting as a pseudo-history.

uhh

[Anonymous No.12304903]

The first time I sawMary Beard, I was 17. It was 1989, and she was speaking at a joint open day for the Oxford and Cambridge classics faculties. She was utterly unlike the other speakers, who, as I recall them, were Oxbridge dons straight from central casting: tweedy, forbidding, male. Instead of standing at a lectern like everyone else, she perched rakishly on the edge of a desk. She was dressed in a vaguely hippyish, embroidered black dress, and a cascade of black hair tumbled around her shoulders. Greg Woolf, now director of the Institute of Classical Studies at the University of London, recalls another one of those open days, in the early 1990s. “I spoke, and then another big hairy bloke like me spoke. And then Mary came on and said: ‘Well, you’ve heard what theboyshave got to say.’

[Anonymous No.12304931]

>>12292176
Because Rome never existed.

[Anonymous No.12304933]

>>12302293
Great show. Mr Shakespeare also did some good work on the same period.

[Anonymous No.12304959]

>>12301320
That 'article' is absolutely fucking incomprehensible. Does he always write like he's on Twitter?

[Anonymous No.12305911]

Obligatory if noone has posted it yet.

If anyone takes this abomination of modern academia seriously I pity you.

[Anonymous No.12305968]

>>12305911
And women wonder why they don't get any respect.

[Anonymous No.12306678]

pet theory: tumblr removing all the porn has given mouthy female university students the spare time to shitpost about pol on 4chan, when before they would have been preoccupied with reblogging bdsm and spanking gifs after an strenuous day of West-hate

[Anonymous No.12306687]

I'm 100 pages into this and it's pretty good. Thanks /lit/

[Anonymous No.12308058]

>>12292176
>>12300755

[Anonymous No.12308091]

>>12301747
I wouldn't be surprised if they were painted by autistic STEM-tards who simply fill in the colors paint-bucket style according to their color analysis.

[Anonymous No.12308796]

>>12302770
>Still I think you are going to far the other way
>telling a person to read a reliable text over an unreliable and outdated text is going to far in the field of history

>Realistically I would happily sacrifice every contribution cultural studies and anthropology have made to history for the rest of Tacitus
You are completely missing the point. If someone wants to read a book that provides some sort of overview of a state, and they want that information to be accurate you read a modern work of history. This is what the whole argument has been about. I don't know if it was you who made the first comment but the argument that I was opposing is the idea that you SHOULD start with classics regardless of how fleeting your interest is in a topic, regardless of how few books you are going to read on the subject before touching modern scholarship because modern historians are just, according to him, recounting the classics.

You seem to be arguing that entertainment is more important than factual information. That doesn't contradict my position at all but you can't claim that they are more historically accurate that modern works and you shouldn't claim that someone who wants to learn an accurate account of a civilisation should intentionally read works of lesser historical accuracy because you find them more entertaining.

[Anonymous No.12308837]

>>12308058
Based Taleb, what a comeback.

[Anonymous No.12309060]

>>12301747
Only the base coat of paint can be figured out because there are still tiny remains of it on the statues. Any addition layers were painted onto dry paint, so it's been lost.

[Anonymous No.12309118]

>>12300364
>it makes the boogeymen upset
Eat a dick please. I’m a historian and Mary Beard and her ilk of pseudo-history is the reason I’ve become a racist. Revising details and ignoring facts whenever they don’t agree with the bias your pushing should get you thrown out of academia

[Anonymous No.12310732]

>>12309118
>Revising details and ignoring facts
Examples of where she did this?

[Anonymous No.12310761]

>>12309118
>>I’m a historian
In what sense? Do you mean that literally, as in you have a PhD in history and make a living researching and teaching the subject, or are you just studying it and prone to self-aggrandisement? I'm interested because the
>I became a racist because I didn't like Mary Beard
comment is not really what I'd expect of anyone with the brains to become a historian.

[Anonymous No.12311144]

>>12294505
>>12294505
>not knowing this namefag is almost as old as /lit/ itself and actually knows his shit.
Your new-cancer is showing

[Anonymous No.12311916]

>>12299904
>you owe us for us not enslaving you

[Anonymous No.12311928]

>>12311144
>defending namefags anywhere on 4chan

Sad.

[Anonymous No.12311988]

>>12306678
There's definitely been an uptick of left-wing types bitching about /pol/ across 4chan. I assumed it was because they'll feel safer on blue boards now that they're segregated onto "4channel."

[Anonymous No.12312027]

>>12311916
Well being eternally bitter about it isnt really doing anything either

[Anonymous No.12312154]

>>12300985

[Anonymous No.12312163]

[Anonymous No.12312246]

>>12296451
True fact...
I remember mentioning something he wrote about how odd it was for the US as a country to found itself with an inalienable right to firearms, and furthermore how the constitution favours the landowning and slave-owning in a tutorial and watching some neckbeard writhe in his seat at the very mention, was very funny.

>>12296424
As a person who has graduated with an actual undergraduate in history, Daniel Goldhagen's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" is a particularly infuriating screed about how the German people possessed a special blend of antisemitism above and beyond regular antisemitism known as "eliminationist" antisemitism. It's infuriating mostly because he pulls this out his ass, and due to the fact that he ignores a wealth of critical information from scholars such as Hannah Arendt, Christopher Browning, and Raul Hilberg to sustain this thesis. I'd recommend giving it a miss and going straight for Browning's "Ordinary Men", Arent's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" or "The Origins of Totalitarianism", or Raul Hilberg's "The Destruction of European Jews" (which unabridged is 1400 pages long) if you actually want to learn something about why Germans perpetrated the Holocaust.

[Anonymous No.12312272]

>>12299157
just use IRC bud

[Anonymous No.12312328]

>>12308058
...
You know that's a lie, right? You can look these things up pretty easily.

>>12309118
I'm literally an MA in Classics at a top 5 in the US. Beard is a fine historian and her scholarship is widely accepted in the field. No one made you a racist but your inability to read.

[Anonymous No.12312333]

>>12296658
>You should have seen /pollit/ sobbing over D. Zuckerburg's latest that explains how idiots online buy into simplifications of history and classics to firm up their own misogynistic and simplistic white natl ideology

Eh.

https://quillette.com/2018/12/11/not-all-dead-white-men-a-review/

[Anonymous No.12313521]

>>12298196
what did she mean by this

[Anonymous No.12314365]

>>12312333
Quillette, bastion of the "intellectual dark web" dislikes something that clashes with its ideologically? Damn, next you'll tell me February follows January and other mind-blowing revelations.

The primary claim that review makes is that the "Red Pill Community" doesn't abuse antiquity because no one online actually starts with the Greeks:
>The subjects of this volume ... are scarcely conscious of classical antiquity, except as a vague source of occasional imagery. These men do not read deeply in ancient texts, nor are they interested to do so.

I'm going to assume that you've been around 4chan long enough to recognize that's fucking bogus.

[Anonymous No.12315140]

>>12311144
>his
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.12315192]

>>12292178
this
I see this fucking trash stocked up in all the normie book stores in my city

[« ƸЖƷ » No.12315218]

>>12315192
>a new book??!! In my book store??