Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

ian-leslie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 256 posts

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#181

Post by WeylandYutani »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #164
bArray wrote: post #158

> Bulstrode hasn’t yet responded to Jelf or Howes in public, but it’s hard to see how her paper can be creditably defended. > I doubt that Bulstrode set out to deceive. No, I think she did. If your intentions are good, you would address the concerns and correct the record. Those around her have a _duty_ to strongly encourage her to do so, otherwise they are complicit. > It’s one thing for a young and passionate acade…

They are leaving academia and receiving a minimum of double salary in the private sector. Historians? If so, can you name a few example? I find this hard to believe.

In America I can believe it. The US government doesn't fund cultural institutions very much. It's all left to private institutions (who frequently have political and ideological agendas).

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#182

Post by hef19898 »

newsclues wrote: post #160
dash2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historians are overwhelmingly on the left, so it’s not surprising most examples come from that. But if you wanted right wing dramatic narratives you could look at Niall Ferguson maybe.

Apparently Howard Zinn is largely responsible for the glorification of communist and vilification of fascism.

Facism is doing all its vilinification by itself. Thaz some people love it is a different question.

Kudos so for writing comminist, and socialism.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#183

Post by jncfhnb »

verisimi wrote: post #154
jncfhnb wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a fairly intuitive claim though.

The idea of a flat earth is also a fairly intuitive claim too, as none of us experience any of the sphere earth attributes - we don't see a curve, experience the spin, etc. Intuition without evidence is really just a story.

Can’t say I agree that the earth being flat seems nearly as intuitive as monks, being the only literate faction at the time and place, were the only ones to record the written history of their time and place.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#184

Post by WeylandYutani »

harry8 wrote: post #85
rectang wrote: post #19

I would find this piece more convincing if it had sampled stories from different sources in service of its thesis rather than focusing on a single work the author finds particularly galling, as there is no shortage of fictional narratives anywhere — look no further than US state-approved high-school history textbooks. Given the narrowness of the material cited, this piece seems to me like unequal application of skept…

Anytime school textbooks are mentioned I feel the urge to refer anyone who'll listen to the relevant chapter of "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman" Feynman is popular around here and rightly so. Blatant corruption from top to bottom is the norm, it would seem. Feynman also loathed psychology and gave it as an example of "Cargo-cult science." Last I heard every single first year psych texbook contained the Stanford pri…

Psychology is not an exact science because people are complicated.

Generally anyone who is fucked in the ass by a creepy uncle ends up at a therapist office so I give psychology the benefit of the doubt.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#185

Post by jncfhnb »

WalterBright wrote: post #68
jncfhnb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who did not follow this in great detail, I don’t anyone claiming it was not possible to diagnose, merely that the signals towards it were very poor and that training for things was bad, and that the crews that experienced crashes had fewer safety features than typical western crews or something like that. Your position here seems zany to me. Clack clacking sounds are not sufficient. Assuming that pilots wo…

> I don’t anyone claiming it was not possible to diagnose I read many times that it was impossible to diagnose it as runaway stabilizer trim. > training for things was bad Stabilizer trim runaway is trained for. Pulling back the throttles for overspeed warning is trained for. > that the crews that experienced crashes had fewer safety features than typical western crews How would you explain not being able to handle r…

> 737 captains tell me it is. The wheels are also painted black & white so their movement is easily seen, as it's right there next to the pilot. How much more obvious do you require it to be?

I’m imagining Boeing putting you to talk to the press and you insisting it was the pilots fault because the plane was making a clacky clacky sound.

I think you sound like a lunatic.

I also recall a key issue was that Boeing tried to make minor changes to the plain such that new training was not required

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#186

Post by bArray »

stareatgoats wrote: post #171
bArray wrote: post #158

> Bulstrode hasn’t yet responded to Jelf or Howes in public, but it’s hard to see how her paper can be creditably defended. > I doubt that Bulstrode set out to deceive. No, I think she did. If your intentions are good, you would address the concerns and correct the record. Those around her have a _duty_ to strongly encourage her to do so, otherwise they are complicit. > It’s one thing for a young and passionate acade…

I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. I believe the author of the article is right: historians have to be conscious of their narrative or the narrative will write the history. That's not being deceptive in the normal sense of the word, it's catering to a perceived true narrative, and unconsciously suppressing anything that might undermine it. Politicians do it al…

> I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out.

I believe at this moment in time she is well aware of the claims against her paper. She has not released a rebuttal to the claims, likely because she doesn't have one (otherwise she would have used stronger evidence in her paper). Every day that goes by, she leaves the paper un-adapted and un-retracted, meaning that she knowingly propagates this false narrative. It is likely she has zero intention of retracting her paper unless the journal forces her.

> Politicians do it all the time, but historians in particular should not do it.

Neither should do it, but politicians are somewhat shorter lived.

> Not getting caught in such narratives is ... difficult.

Posing a narrative isn't necessarily negative, as long as it is plausible and supported by evidence. For example, you could read a very good argument for Europe being wrong to go to war with Nazi Germany and have very good arguments being made based on proper evidence. You don't have to agree with it, just respect a difference of opinion.

The paper the article addresses does not fall into this category.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#187

Post by thecrab »

stareatgoats wrote: post #171
bArray wrote: post #158

> Bulstrode hasn’t yet responded to Jelf or Howes in public, but it’s hard to see how her paper can be creditably defended. > I doubt that Bulstrode set out to deceive. No, I think she did. If your intentions are good, you would address the concerns and correct the record. Those around her have a _duty_ to strongly encourage her to do so, otherwise they are complicit. > It’s one thing for a young and passionate acade…

I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. I believe the author of the article is right: historians have to be conscious of their narrative or the narrative will write the history. That's not being deceptive in the normal sense of the word, it's catering to a perceived true narrative, and unconsciously suppressing anything that might undermine it. Politicians do it al…

https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-mi...

> Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims — 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.

> “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in a Jan. 31 interview. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’”

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#188

Post by hef19898 »

thecrab wrote: post #187
stareatgoats wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. I believe the author of the article is right: historians have to be conscious of their narrative or the narrative will write the history. That's not being deceptive in the normal sense of the word, it's catering to a perceived true narrative, and unconsciously suppressing anything that might undermine it. Politicians do it al…

https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-mi... > Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims — 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. > “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in a Jan…

6 million murdered jews is about right and well proven by facts. Then we have another 3 million soviet POWs, half a million Sinti and Roma and euthanasie victims plus 3 odd million other civilian victims of the Nazis. Depending or your exact definition of the holocaust, 11 millions victims is pretty accurate.

Edit: General question, what is it with new accounts created, seemimgly, only for comments like yours? I don't see anything controversial in it that migjt justify a throwaway... Unless of course you are new to HN, in which cade, welcome!

Edit 2: It seems I have day checking links... well, you article quotes Bauer:

>>

“All Jews of the world had to be annihilated,” Bauer said. “That was the intent. There was never an idea in Nazi minds to murder all the Russians.”

With all due respect to Bauer, the Nazis deliberately killed Soviet POWs. And they considered them sub-human of sorts. Also tue, the Nazis basically started WW2 to murder all the jews. As I said, depends if where draw the line of the Holocaust, and whether or not you want to include non-jewish victims caught in the same industrial genocide complex seperately or not. It seems the question is not the number of victims, but rather under which column they are counted. >>

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#189

Post by ZeroGravitas »

thecrab wrote: post #187
stareatgoats wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. I believe the author of the article is right: historians have to be conscious of their narrative or the narrative will write the history. That's not being deceptive in the normal sense of the word, it's catering to a perceived true narrative, and unconsciously suppressing anything that might undermine it. Politicians do it al…

https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-mi... > Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims — 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. > “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in a Jan…

That seems more like nitpicking over definitions than anything relevant to this matter.

Your quote and several other parts of the story focus on the number being "made up" and yet the same person quoted by you also says:

> The problem, according to Bauer, who has debunked the number repeatedly in his writings over the decades, is not that non-Jews were not victims; they were. It is that Wiesenthal’s arbitrarily chosen tally of non-Jewish victims diminishes the centrality to the Nazi ideology of systematically wiping any trace of the Jewish people from the planet.

> In fact, he said, the term “genocide” could accurately be applied to the 2 million to 3 million Poles murdered and millions more enslaved by the Nazis. But the mass murder of the Poles, Roma and others should not come under the rubric “Holocaust,”

So that's up to 3 million Poles, up to half a million Roma, which only requires "others" to make up 1.5 million for the "made up" number to be exactly correct. A quick Google suggests about a quarter of a million disabled people, 20 thousand gay men. So in reality this seems a surprisingly accurate "lie".

What he appears to be mostly concerned about is that the term "Holocaust" be a specific term for the Nazi genocide of Jews, and other terms be used for their genocide of other groups.

If anything, his dramatic quote about telling Simon Wiesenthal he was spreading a lie is a better example of someone using drama to advance their opinion

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#190

Post by simbolit »

coldtea wrote: post #150
simbolit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate? what grand stories (or meta-narratives) historically shown to be good tools for prediction and problem-solving do you have in mind?

The grand story of "stages of historical development of the means of production" in Marxism for example. Or the grand story of the rise and decline of civilizations in Spengler.

I have to think about these. Have immediate negative gut reaction, but want to think about if for some time.

Anyway, thank you very much for answering!

Post reply on HN