This is a very weird article that encouraged me to unsubscribe. History can encompass documentary history (i.e. the facts, figures and recording of events), critical re-evaluations and the sort of moral education you lionize. If you want to highlight some important elements of moral teaching to learn from ancient Greek and Roman historia…
This is a very weird article that encouraged me to unsubscribe. History can encompass documentary history (i.e. the facts, figures and recording of events), critical re-evaluations and the sort of moral education you lionize. If you want to highlight some important elements of moral teaching to learn from ancient Greek and Roman historians, then just write an article about that. Nevermind that I fundamentally disagree with your depiction of ancient writers as "never reckless with the truth" when much of their writing (while explainable) was centrally concerned with documenting the history of the world through a lens of Greek/Roman superiority. There's just no need to take potshots at an entire discipline, especially when that discipline has never been more concerned with questions of power, nuance and reciprocity.
I agree with you, history has been written by the winners to glorify themselves and justify their violent past. Therefore, that’s why what we need right now is to reconsider the narratives we used to know, challenge those and dismantle facts from power dynamics embedded in those narratives. Using Roman history as an evidence for this article is weird because the discipline itself started as Classics to justify imperialism and the colonial project of the British Empire. It started to promote elitism in the US as well (which came with lack of inclusivity and inequality of perspectives in the field even now). Before that, Roman history wasn’t even in the mainstream academic attention, besides Christian studies. Therefore, using Roman history as an example is like … “let’s go back to the old day of imperialism, slavery and colonialism where we idolize imperialist lords and Roman/Greek men with superiority complex in their time” 🤨
This is a very weird article that encouraged me to unsubscribe. History can encompass documentary history (i.e. the facts, figures and recording of events), critical re-evaluations and the sort of moral education you lionize. If you want to highlight some important elements of moral teaching to learn from ancient Greek and Roman historians, then just write an article about that. Nevermind that I fundamentally disagree with your depiction of ancient writers as "never reckless with the truth" when much of their writing (while explainable) was centrally concerned with documenting the history of the world through a lens of Greek/Roman superiority. There's just no need to take potshots at an entire discipline, especially when that discipline has never been more concerned with questions of power, nuance and reciprocity.
I agree with you, history has been written by the winners to glorify themselves and justify their violent past. Therefore, that’s why what we need right now is to reconsider the narratives we used to know, challenge those and dismantle facts from power dynamics embedded in those narratives. Using Roman history as an evidence for this article is weird because the discipline itself started as Classics to justify imperialism and the colonial project of the British Empire. It started to promote elitism in the US as well (which came with lack of inclusivity and inequality of perspectives in the field even now). Before that, Roman history wasn’t even in the mainstream academic attention, besides Christian studies. Therefore, using Roman history as an example is like … “let’s go back to the old day of imperialism, slavery and colonialism where we idolize imperialist lords and Roman/Greek men with superiority complex in their time” 🤨
Hot house flower fiercely objects to observer noticing the dispossession of history by anti Western ideologues and pedants
Oh please.
And I’m not surprised the author is a white man 🤨