/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2341139]

This is Susan Wise Bauer, she is an author and publisher and, as far as I can tell, a fundie christfag. I first came across her when I bought her The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade, which I found was an excellent book.

Now, I'm thinking of buying her other book: The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome, in the hope it will be just as good in its scope and detail. But before I go and spend 20 to 30 pounds on it, I'd like to know if there is any valid criticism of her historical writing. I feel like a douchebag for saying it, but I fear that there might be a bit of a skew when discussing the earliest account of human history if she happens to be a Young Earther or something. Reading her bio she seems like a very clever woman with good credentials but I don't want to fork out for a huge hardback if it's not going to give proper treatment.

Thinking back, there was an analogy made in the Medieval history one between the modern debate on Creationism and the ancient Christology debates (in which Dawkings and Harris were mentioned), by I can't quite remember if it was a disparaging remark against them.

Anyway, any help you guys could give me would be appreciated. I'd greatly recommend The History of the Medieval World.

[Anonymous No.2341153]

bumping with David Starkey

[Anonymous No.2341157]

>a fundie christfag.
fuck off you atheist vermin.

[Anonymous No.2341159]

>>2341157

[Anonymous No.2341168]

>>2341157
He seems to like the
>fundie christfag
and other than being 14, he just seem to want to know if she's unacceptably biased.

[Anonymous No.2341176]

>>2341168
This, kinda. I just want to know that I'll get accurate info. The discussion in the first book about Christianity seemed pretty profession. She might not even be a fundie. I'm hoping someone can tell me.

[Anonymous No.2341193]

more starkeybump

[Anonymous No.2341199]

>>2341176
>I just want to know that I'll get accurate info.
No history book has "accurate info". Go get something like "The Nature of History" instead.

[Anonymous No.2341204]

quit bumping with starkey

"Whites are turning black!"

oh wow.

[Anonymous No.2341206]

>>2341204
Best. Interview. Ever.

[Anonymous No.2341214]

>>2341206

iknowright

watching it again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAGTE_RGN4c

[Anonymous No.2341225]

>>2341214
masterful

[Anonymous No.2341227]

>>2341214
>He's never able to finish a point and is constantly talked over by two PC lefties with no help from the chair.
Oh, that description is wonderful.

[Anonymous No.2341273]

>>2341214
Would have been better if he was one-on-one with Paxman

[Anonymous No.2341280]

>>2341273
I can just imagine him going "The Whites are becoming Black?" "Well what ARE you saying?" and then calling him stupid.

[Anonymous No.2341307]

>>2341214
mfw I agree with him

[Anonymous No.2341323]

>>2341214

[OP No.2341436]

Yeah, so bumping.

[Anonymous No.2341543]

She has a doctorate in a cross-disciplinary field "American Studies" instead of plain-old History and considering she comes from a background of English studies, I'd be VERY mindful concerning her historiography etc.

Still she sounds better than all those journalists and even ex-sportsmen writing "history" books with no real training.

[OP No.2341745]

>>2341543
Moar of this

[OP No.2341886]

bump again

[Anonymous No.2341892]

>>2341745
I smell homework...

[Anonymous No.2341919]

If you're so concerned with factual accuracy, why don't you try and find something published earlier? Why read a book written a few years ago that rehashes long known facts?

PS why the fuck are you considering buying it already, when you're not sure if it's accurate and when you could read it at the library? This is a fucking of retards, I swear...

[Anonymous No.2341921]

>>2341919
>*generation of retards

Well, I guess I proved it.

[Anonymous No.2341930]

>>2341921
I quite like the phrase a fucking of retards.

Also, when you're talking about "factual accuracy" in history, you've probably already failed.

[OP No.2341940]

>>2341919
Because I thought the other one was fine. I don't think there is another book as wide in scope as the one I read, as it covered the medieval world all the way from the Celtic kings of Ireland to the Jin in China.

>>2341930
There's accuracy and there's ignoring shit.

[Anonymous No.2341945]

>>2341940
>There's accuracy and there's ignoring shit.
There's accuracy and there's sophistry.

[Anonymous No.2341949]

>>2341139

according to fundies, there haven't been any books written since the bible. ergo, her writing is hogwash (by her own faith).

[Anonymous No.2341960]

>>2341949

[Anonymous No.2341956]

So I haven't read this thread but I can only assume it to be a bunch of dumb arguments about religion, and wild assumptions about her writing solely on the basis of her faith by people who have no actual knowledge of her writing. So in other words incredibly unhelpful to OP.

[Anonymous No.2341964]

>>2341956
Not even a little.

[Anonymous No.2341989]

I was hoping someone would bring up the dark ages so I could slap their shit over it being a concept made up by renaissance thinkers who fetishized the classical period which is not accepted by modern historians. instead the thread's become about some politics thing. weird how /lit/s gotten a little right-wing in the last month or so, what's up with that?

[Anonymous No.2341991]

>>2341989
there's one anon who is incredibly right-wing, white nationalist, neo-nazi, and incredibly vocal about it. he basically goes in and out of being banned or not posting, and he's been around for last few weeks, which is probably why. i mean, there are probably other conservative posters as well, but stormfront anon is the central reason here.

[OP No.2341996]

>>2341989
>>2341989
>being a concept made up by renaissance thinkers who fetishized the classical period which is not accepted by modern historians

Thought most people knew this

[Anonymous No.2342001]

>>2341996
most people who are decently-educated about history, yes. this is not at all coterminous with most people, even most people who know something about history beyond the fact that it happened in the past.

[Anonymous No.2342003]

>>2341996
it comes up a lot in religion threads, and I figured since this is a christianity + history thread is was bound to come up.

[Anonymous No.2342016]

>>2342003
>can't be bothered to skim less than 30 posts
Non-reader detected.
>>2341989
>a concept made up by renaissance thinkers who fetishized the classical period which is not accepted by modern historians
Sounds like a simplified narrative to me. Postmodern historians ftw.

[Anonymous No.2342025]

>>2342016
>can't be bothered to skim less than 30 posts
maybe if you hadn't just skimmed you would have realized your response was inappropriate.

[Anonymous No.2342023]

>>2342016
i was trying to do a carnac the magnificent thing

>Sounds like a simplified narrative to me. Postmodern historians ftw.

i mean, it's pretty much literally true that the concept of the medieval period as the "dark ages" was first formulated by renaissance humanists as a rhetorical means to justify their own, new ideas and projects through reference to the classical past, while also setting both that past and themselves apart from their immediate predecessors

[OP No.2342036]

>>2342023
Now that you're here, do you know of this author?

[Anonymous No.2342038]

>>2342023
This is true, I was just playing a bad devil's advocate. I haven't read anyone contemporary who doesn't take it as a given.

[Anonymous No.2342042]

>>2342016
>Sounds like a simplified narrative to me.

What does? The dark ages? Yes.

The idea that the dark ages were manufactured by renaissance thinkers? No. I mean, we're not talking about something ephemeral or subjective like what factors lead to such and such a conflict. The "dark ages" didn't exist until the renaissance decided that everything that happened between the classical period and them was garbage. We can argue about their motivations, but they coined the term as well as the idea.

[Anonymous No.2342047]

>>2342042
I thought the term "dark ages" just applied to a period with little or no surviving records, or am I just thinking of the Greed dark age

[Anonymous No.2342053]

>>2342047
i guess the term is generally used for that, but if you say The Dark Ages you're generally referring to the period between the fall of Rome and the rise of Italian humanism in the Renaissance. of course, neither the Dark Ages nor the Renaissance are concepts that are particularly popular as correct understandings of history, these days. like, neither of those characterizations of history has that much validity

[OP No.2342058]

>>2342053
>neither of those characterizations of history has that much validity
How come?

[Anonymous No.2342063]

>>2342058
thinking about the medieval period as "the dark ages" ignores the flourishing, lively, intelligent culture of the period, thinking of the "renaissance" in the classic sense ignores the continuity between the late medieval and the renaissance, and the continual classicism / romanism of western european culture even during the medieval period

[Anonymous No.2342064]

>>2341206
>>2341214
>>2341225
>>2341307
>>2341323
he's a poor historian. out of all the people in the room, he should know that riots are the language of the poor, not the black

>dat intervening variable

[Anonymous No.2342069]

>>2342064
Yeah we know. As someone else in this thread pointed out, there's one nazi on /lit/ that likes to have conversations with himself. He even uses the same posting style, check it out.

[Anonymous No.2342072]

>>2342064
>language of the poor
>riots organized on Blackberry messenger

[Anonymous No.2342076]

>>2342047
No. It's a general term for this period after the decline of the Roman Empire and before the start of industrialisation. The Romans were considered the pinnacle of civilisation, and the question of how we'd progress with industrialisation and the rise of the colonial empires was central to people like Adam Smith or Malthus. The fear was that we'd fall again as it were.

That's not to say that there weren't dark ages in some places wrt records. Ottoman empire did prevent countries from writing, there have been massive book burnings in China (though much earlier than in what we call the dark ages), and the Celts and native Americans didn't keep written records at all. That said, written records have, in the past, really only been mnemonic devices and not the final word. All cultures have a vibrant and rich oral history.

[Anonymous No.2342084]

>>2342072
>mistaking one-time luxury expenses for proof of being middle class
>not knowing that a stable financial foundation, not crude electronic luxuries, is the diagnostic criteria for being a member of the middle class

[Anonymous No.2342087]

>>2342076
I meant to write "dark age" rather than "ages", and that other typo was meant to read Greek*

Anyway, it's not like civilization ended after Rome, it was continued in the east. What I meant was, people think the term means no civilization, when, at least I thought, it just meant a period of which later historians have little knowledge. Am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.2342094]

>>2342084
I don't see how anyone could really disagree with this but I bet someone will.

[OP No.2342100]

>>2342064
Not sure that was quite the point he made but anyway. The OP post anyone? Anyone been in a similar situation and found the respective book to be flawed?

[Anonymous No.2342102]

>>2342100
i think it's pretty clear by now that none of us know her books or have any real knowledge of her

somebody looked her up on wikipedia, probably the best you're going to get

[Anonymous No.2342124]

I'd probab;y fuck mott romneys diaughter lol

[Anonymous No.2342125]

>>2342053
The Dark Ages were between 500 and 800 AD. Between then and 1300 AD (Renaissance Humanism) you have the Early Middle Ages and the High Middle Ages.

[Anonymous No.2342127]

>>2342124
wrong thread

[Anonymous No.2342130]

>>2342125
Was gonna say, I think he confused "dark ages" with "medieval"

[Anonymous No.2342132]

>>2342124
wrong thread, right post

[Anonymous No.2342133]

>>2342100
you're right, it was supplementary to his central point, which was, "the chavs have become black"

and his view, if i may paraphrase: "black culture is criminal and violent"

his mistake is essentializing blackness as violent and criminal. i disagree with essentializing in general as its a philosophical device of the simple-minded. but if you want to do such a thing, historical evidence shows riots as a practice of the poor in general without regard to race.

sage because i know this will ultimately degenerate into a eugenics debate

[Anonymous No.2342135]

>>2342125
Oh god, it's one of these idiots...

These charts? Allocation of eras? They're mnemonic devices, not reality.

[Anonymous No.2342142]

>>2342135
Wow son, you are mad. Slow down.

He's just correcting the terminology, I didn't see him anywhere saying "they're reality"

[Anonymous No.2342149]

>>2342142
>He's just correcting the terminology
Pedants. Pedants everywhere.

[Anonymous No.2342153]

>>2342149
>correction of simple mistake-->pedantry! pedantry everywhere!

[Anonymous No.2342154]

>>2342153
>seeing a mistake where there is none
>not pedantry
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.2342157]

>>2342149
He was. It's like someone saying "red" is around 600 nanometers and "blue" around 300

And then: LOL u r so retard omg don't you know they are just names on a continuum how r u this dumb

[Anonymous No.2342160]

>>2342142
Well, see, there's a couple problems with that. The main one of course is that "the dark ages" is to begin with an outdated concept that really isn't used by academics anymore.

The other problem is that the term was originally used to describe the whole of history from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance. Now, at another time, your definition was also used. But you essentially corrected one correct definition for the term with another, where the term isn't used at all anymore. Pretty pointless, right?

[Anonymous No.2342161]

>>2342157
>It's like someone saying "red" is around 600 nanometers and "blue" around 300
Worst analogy ever.

[Anonymous No.2342163]

>>2342161
Why

[Anonymous No.2342167]

>>2342163
Labels of colour have at best a vague correspondence to certain wavelengths of light. Look at a green pool table for long enough, everything looks red. See subjectivity of colour.

[Anonymous No.2342173]

>>2342167
How does that affect the point made at all. It's a label placed arbitrarily on a scale

[Anonymous No.2342178]

>>2342142
>>2342130
Quite so.

I should further clarify what I believe to be the general breakdown, at least as I learned it (circa 2005):

500-800 CE/AD: Dark Ages. Continuing dissolution of political organization and secular documentation. Apart from monasteries, nobody's writing anything down, thus little is known of this period apart from archaeological research.

800-1000 CE/AD: Early Medieval Ages. Beginning with Charlemagne, Alfred the Great et al., stop-and-start attempts to create de jure secular political systems with attending bureaucracy and documentation. Development of feudal economies.

1000-1300 CE/AD: High Medieval Ages: what the title implies.

1300-1600 CE/AD: Late Medieval Ages: Feudalism breaks down, Church control of secular chanceries break down. Transitions into Renaissance gradually across Europe, which is in turn followed by the Enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.2342181]

>>2342173
...They're not arbitrary.

[OP No.2342184]

>>2342181
Are you taking me for a ride?

Saying red is 700nm is arbitrary.
Saying the Dark Ages begins AD 500 is arbitrary

That's the analogy. I mean really.

[Anonymous No.2342192]

>>2342184
Mnemonics aren't particularly logical, but they're not arbitrary. If I say "red laser" the wavelengths of the laser light are not arbitrary. If I say Dark ages, and act as if it's a perfectly acceptable reference to the 1970s in USA, it would be confusing and generally considered wrong.

[Anonymous No.2342198]

>>2342184
>Saying red is a color is arbitrary. Why are some things colors and others shades?

>Saying red is exactly 700nm in wavelength is an arbitrary restriction to the concept of red.

>Measuring light in meters is arbitrary.

>Measuring time primarily in years is arbitrary.

>Saying a particular year is 500 is arbitrary.

>Saying there is such a thing as "history" is arbitrary. Whose history are we talking about here?

By the time you're done, we won't be able to talk about anything except our feelings.

[Anonymous No.2342203]

>>2342198
>>2342192
Jesus. Please read the post again and see how ridiculous you've made this.

[Anonymous No.2342205]

>>2342198
Discrete feelings are arbitrary points on the spectrum of human experience.

[Anonymous No.2342214]

>>2342205

[Anonymous No.2342215]

>>2342205

"Human experience" is an arbitrary restriction on the totality of life.

[Anonymous No.2342217]

>>2342203
lern2reductioadabsurdum, bro

[Anonymous No.2342221]

>>2342205
Shit. If only we could attribute meaningful values somehow...

[Anonymous No.2342222]

>>2342215
"Experience" is simply in relation to unexperience.
There's really no delineation of the two

[Anonymous No.2342241]

>>2341991
>and he's been around for last few years
ftfy

>>2342064
yes because west virginia has so many riots mirite? You know that "poor" is a 100% arbitrary and artificial metric? None of these negros are starving in fact the serious problem for them is obesity!

[OP No.2342245]

>>2342241
ohboy

[Anonymous No.2342248]

>>2342178
lol @ the whole hurr church = bad rhetoric.

you do realize that no historian even supports shit like that anymore and it was basically made up by protestants?

[Anonymous No.2342257]

>>2342248
>church = bad rhetoric
Where

[Anonymous No.2342276]

>>2342248
I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

My point is that Church control of Western life in the Middle Ages was a function of controlling discourse, as they were the only literate body operating in nexus with the State and those it represented.

An example for understanding this: English governmental records were written in (various shades) of ecclesiastical Latin and, later, some Law French until Henry V's chancery developed a standard written form of Middle English... beginning only in 1417.

Church and State are fundamental divisions of society right up to the last century. Maybe even today, really.

[Anonymous No.2342281]

>>2342133
Blacks ARE criminal and violent.

>>2342135
So, one of those "out of africa" things?

[Anonymous No.2342283]

>>2342241
>You know that "poor" is a 100% arbitrary and artificial metric?
World poverty solved, it was just an artificial metric all along! Thank god for the rich to remind everyone this.

[Anonymous No.2342298]

>>2342283 the Rich
Rich is an arbitrary distinction as well

>everyone
Finally, a non-arbitrary distinction. Let's now have a conversation concerning everyone and how everything affected them at everytime in everyway.

[Anonymous No.2342301]

>>2342298
>Rich is an arbitrary distinction as well
I think someone isn't seeing how seriously they're being taken.

[Anonymous No.2342305]

>>2342283
>thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Please don't be a sinner

[Anonymous No.2342332]

>>2342301
I'll try to be more farcical in the future.

[Anonymous No.2342672]

I have no real idea what this thread is about but it seems like a bunch of objects talking about other objects and how nice their hair looks, which seems meaningless. Maybe I'm wrong.