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

Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#11

Post by WillAdams »

cratermoon wrote: post #7

Howard Zinn wrote A People's History of the United States as a counter to the usual histories of the US that focus on presidents, statesmen, and robber barons of the Gilded Age. He covers things we mostly don't learn about in school, including the rise of the Labor movement, native Americans, slaves and post-Civil War freedman, and women.

That paired with 1491 makes for an insightful and markedly different view of history.

Also read Smedley Butler's _War is a Racket_ for an early comment on the "Military Industrial Complex".

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#12

Post by captainbland »

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #6

before mass literacy, history books were funded by the folks with all the resources to be read by the future owners of those resources. And that trend continues because this article is behind a paywall!

I was going to say, even in the age of the internet you often need substantial resources to overcome the competition for attention (and hence relevance) that granting everyone equal publishing rights creates.

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#13

Post by captainbland »

I do think that the "big man of history" style narrative has strange effects on the popular perception of things, creating a consensus image of "what a leader should look like". But these stories of great leaders frequently downplay the human costs of their exploits, often rendering their lessers essentially disposable. So our collective historical narrative has a bit of a bias of saying, essentially, "elect someone who would gladly throw you into the fires of combat for personal glory".

This is what a "leader" looks like to many because of that cultural bias.

Of course most people question this narrative strongly today, but I think it has a role in how strong man political figures end up being supported by many despite the obvious risks associated with that.

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#14

Post by kjellsbells »

billfruit wrote: post #5

Like if your read Macaulay's History of England, he does say very much on the King's and Queens, but he's not heaping praise on them, he is very critical of them, sometimes very entertainingly so. Most of English history as per Macaulay is of conflict between the King and Parliament, with a good amount of religious discord mixed in, between the major groups like the church of England, Catholics and puritans.

Macaulay is essentially a ripping good yarn. That's the problem with the Whiggish style of history writing: it's so entertaining that you forget the awkward parts.

He would write something cheerful like, "the proud Scots demonstrated the excellence of their industry in the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and in the Americas" and then you check the dates and realize that he's writing about the period of the Highland Clearances.

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#16

Post by resize2996 »

WillAdams wrote: post #3

G.K. Chesterton and H.G. Wells seemed to think so in their histories of England (though note that Wells' work is controversial due to an accusation of plagiarism). Both are available at Project Gutenberg and Librivox: >"A Short History of England" by G. K. Chesterton is a historical account written in the early 20th century. The book provides a unique perspective on English history, challenging traditional narratives…

I didn't realize _The People's History of the United States_ had such direct precedents.

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#17

Post by WillAdams »

resize2996 wrote: post #16
WillAdams wrote: post #3

G.K. Chesterton and H.G. Wells seemed to think so in their histories of England (though note that Wells' work is controversial due to an accusation of plagiarism). Both are available at Project Gutenberg and Librivox: >"A Short History of England" by G. K. Chesterton is a historical account written in the early 20th century. The book provides a unique perspective on English history, challenging traditional narratives…

I didn't realize _The People's History of the United States_ had such direct precedents.

A more up-to-date option would be:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61505.A_Little_History_o...

which I greatly enjoyed sharing w/ my kids as an (excellent quality) audiobook.

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#18

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

captainbland wrote: post #12
b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #6

before mass literacy, history books were funded by the folks with all the resources to be read by the future owners of those resources. And that trend continues because this article is behind a paywall!

I was going to say, even in the age of the internet you often need substantial resources to overcome the competition for attention (and hence relevance) that granting everyone equal publishing rights creates.

Everyone has the same opportunity (to spend the money) to have their voices heard!

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#19

Post by billfruit »

kjellsbells wrote: post #14
billfruit wrote: post #5

Like if your read Macaulay's History of England, he does say very much on the King's and Queens, but he's not heaping praise on them, he is very critical of them, sometimes very entertainingly so. Most of English history as per Macaulay is of conflict between the King and Parliament, with a good amount of religious discord mixed in, between the major groups like the church of England, Catholics and puritans.

Macaulay is essentially a ripping good yarn. That's the problem with the Whiggish style of history writing: it's so entertaining that you forget the awkward parts. He would write something cheerful like, "the proud Scots demonstrated the excellence of their industry in the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and in the Americas" and then you check the dates and realize that he's writing about the period of the Highland Cle…

One exact quote comes to my mind, "While Fairfax suppressed the risings in the neighborhood of the capital, Oliver routed the Welsh insurgents, and, leaving their castles in ruins, marched against the Scots. His troops were few, when compared with the invaders; but he was little in the habit of counting his enemies."

Re: Does a Focus on Royalty Obscure British History?

#20

Post by WillAdams »

captainbland wrote: post #13

I do think that the "big man of history" style narrative has strange effects on the popular perception of things, creating a consensus image of "what a leader should look like". But these stories of great leaders frequently downplay the human costs of their exploits, often rendering their lessers essentially disposable. So our collective historical narrative has a bit of a bias of saying, essentially, "elect someone…

An interesting antidote for that is to read biographies --- even those of leaders often have a section where the subject is an ordinary person, subjected to the forces of those in power --- reading a series of them in chronological order (I read those of U.S. Presidents to my children as a dry-run for an unfortunately abandoned project to do this for the entirety of world history) yields interesting insights into history and its ebb-and-flow.
Post reply on HN