|
Cyrano4747 posted:Then I stumbled on this: Looks like I got lucky, I stumbled on that one myself. It was detailed, reasonable in its assumptions, made no wild conjectures, and had a solid narrative.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Even the American Civil War? You kind of answered it yourself with the other factors. But hell, just as a throw away: one of the proximate causes was the southern leadership believing that the ban on new slave states west of the Mississippi meant that they would inevitably lose the 50/50 free/slave state split in the senate, which meant that slavery was doomed to be legislated out of existence by an ever-expanding anti-slavery bloc. You can make a very good argument that the seeming violation of the Missouri Compromise by the post-Mexican-American War Wilmot Proviso (banned slavery in the territory taken from Mexico) was the proximate cause of the acceleration in pro/anti-slavery politics through the 1850s that ultimately lead to the conflict. Would there have been a Civil War without slavery? Unknowable, but certainly not in the form it took. However if you're looking for proximate causes it's more than just slavery existing, otherwise we would have had a civil war in 1820. There was also a breakdown of the legislative compromises that kept poo poo turning over for the next 40 years. So you can argue that slavery was a necessary component for the Civil War (again, as it historically happened) but there were political failures and breakdowns necessary to turn a constitutional crisis into an armed conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Even the American Civil War? "Slavery" is the cause, of the war, yes. But - and, no, I am not going to engage in lost-cause bullshit here - a historian isn't going to stop there, they're going to ask a lot more questions. Why did chattel slavery flourish in the American South, was abolition possible without war, what events made war inevitable, etc. Edit: Too slow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Hell yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Like, conceptually or actually? If someone really wants an actual learning while mowing the lawn version, there are tons of places selling university lectures. I know Great Courses is out there if you feel like spending money. They're mostly geared towards video but I would assume there's some kind of audio version of this. A quick look at their catalog, for example, has this course on the Black Death with the lectures given by someone I don't know of but who has a PhD from Duke and teaches at Purdue. I'm going to assume she's not a crank without even stalking her CV. fake edit: lol looked up a topic I kinda know, communism from Stalin to Mao and it's taught by a guy I actually have a tenuous connection with. Colleague of a good friend. Also author of THE book if you want to know about German occupation policies on the Eastern Front in WW1 and how it shaped nationalism and German ideas of poo poo like Lebensraum post-war. real edit: Ok, they got Childers to do their video series on Nazism and the Third Reich. He did a lot of important early work on the Nazi voting constituency in the 90s-00s. It's been a while since I did a deep dive on that, no idea if he's still the authority on that, but I'd certainly sit up and listen if he was lecturing on the rise of Hitler. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
There are several universities that post their lectures on Youtube. You can also listen to (non classified) Naval War College lectures while you should be working, for another example of free online content. Cyrano4747 posted:Also author of THE book if you want to know about German occupation policies on the Eastern Front in WW1 and how it shaped nationalism and German ideas of poo poo like Lebensraum post-war. I loved that book, tell him "thanks" if you ever see him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:Podcasting doesn't make it impossible to talk about history in a deep way. It can change how you present it but if you do the work the material should be okay. The issue with Duncan isn't so much that he's talking via podcast, but because he tends to rely on sources that are wildly out of date. Or is just in accurate. If he put together the podcast into a book, it would have the same problems. Are the sources for the Russia series so bad? Of all his topics of focus it's the one I know the least about. It seems like it mixes in a reasonable amount of newer sources, and it at least feels more modern than Carlin usually does, but I'm not at all in a position to judge much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Even the American Civil War? Yes. Others have covered things like the Homestead Act but there are other factors as well. The South didn't love the North's control of the banks. You have both regions promoting different economic policies to benefit that region. The reason that you tend to hear slavery as the focused on cause is that it is a huge factor, and it ties into a lot of all other factors. Combine that with a groups of people like the Lost Causers, or those who push the line that slavery wasn't so bad, and it breeds a need to loving shout out how big a factor Slavery was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Oh another straightforwardly "just good" history podcast: https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/xj86r-57174/The-History-of-Witchcraft-Podcast. And another though a lot of it is archaeology: http://www.wedgepod.org/episode-list/ There are other history podcasts I like (Egyptian History Podcast near the top) but I have to caveat them with stuff like "the guy is a student, not a professor, and thus not nearly as fully vetted as he could be." But again the AskHistorians podcast is just a whole shitload of interviews with genuine peer-reviewed experts, it's very hard to not recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Are the sources for the Russia series so bad? Of all his topics of focus it's the one I know the least about. It seems like it mixes in a reasonable amount of newer sources, and it at least feels more modern than Carlin usually does, but I'm not at all in a position to judge much. So, I can't really comment on the Russian chunk you're asking about because I just don't know the literature, but taking a glance at his section on 1848 it's not bad, but no great. In particular I'll note how many of the books he's got up there that were written before 1990. There was a LOT of work done on the 1848 Revolutions - especially the ones in the German states - in the 90s and early 00s and just in general after people started looking more at culture. Working class culture in particular and the way it played into revolutionary movements was a big thing in those circles at that time. Which isn't terrible for a podcast, but this one kinda stood out to me: Alan Sked. From his wikipedia: quote:Alan Sked FRHistS (born 22 August 1947) is a Scottish eurosceptic academic notable for having founded the Anti-Federalist League (in order to oppose the Maastricht Treaty) and its successor the UK Independence Party (UKIP). He is Professor Emeritus of International History at the London School of Economics and has stood as a candidate in several parliamentary elections. Which, you know, not ideal if you're drawing secondary sources to discuss a politically contentious issue like revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:Yes. Others have covered things like the Homestead Act but there are other factors as well. The South didn't love the North's control of the banks. You have both regions promoting different economic policies to benefit that region. Then later you get the sharecropping period which has a similar dynamic even if it is somewhat less horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Right, and a lot of the other causes seem to loop back - the South could have easily supported a wide and diverse array of agriculture if it had been settled differently, it's not like there was some magical power to land situated above the Mason/Dixon line. But instead you could get rich by having slaves grow cotton or maybe tobacco in some regions, and why not grow rich instead? (the slaves are not asked) The point is that slavery was such a huge, all encompassing problem in American politics from 1776 - 1865 that you can find its tendrils in everything. It was absolutely the driving force behind the Civil War. That doesn't make it the only reason the war happened, though. If the north had been so unambiguously stronger and had 100% of the military establishment on its side, the south may have never risked secession. If the people who wanted to annex the Caribbean to create new slave states had gotten their way the legislative balance of power might have been retained through the 1880s, and god knows what happens then. If Buchanan hadn't been such a limp dick of a president or hadn't been as pro-slavery (or at least pro-maintaining the status quo) as he was he might have raised the army and moved it into Kansas and nipped some of that poo poo off at the bud. If Dredd Scott had gone differently and said slavery was OK in the territories the war may never have happened because slavery expanded to the western frontier and became the dominant system itself. Same hypothetical but the Missouri compromise never happens and the Free States are just told to STFU while they bring in the Louisiana Purchase as slave territory. It's a major cause, it's the dominant cause, but it's not the only cause. There are just so many more variables in play for a) why the pro/anti-slavery disagreements got so bad b) why that escalated to armed insurrection and c) why that happened at the specific time it did and not 20 years before or after.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The point is that slavery was such a huge, all encompassing problem in American politics from 1776 - 1865 that you can find its tendrils in everything. It was absolutely the driving force behind the Civil War.  Those do all seem to address the economic anxiety of your Beauregard Overseer in the street. Hindcast bias, I suppose, as well as my American background making it seem grand and cosmic in a way that is not justified (though it is, of course, an important historical event).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Are the sources for the Russia series so bad? Of all his topics of focus it's the one I know the least about. It seems like it mixes in a reasonable amount of newer sources, and it at least feels more modern than Carlin usually does, but I'm not at all in a position to judge much. I can't speak to the historiography of his Russian revolutions podcast. But given his track record, I'd be skeptical till an expert weighed in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:I can't speak to the historiography of his Russian revolutions podcast. But given his track record, I'd be skeptical till an expert weighed in. Just thought of a good analogy for this stuff: These podcast historians are the history version of Mythbusters. Adam and Jamie are entertaining media personalities with careers working in special effects. They sure know their way around a machine shop, and they're clever enough to use math to test out some wacky stuff. It doesn't make them physicists or archeologists or historians or any one of the other things their show touched on, and as a result there are tons of weird problems and errors that the people who actually are those things will be really happy to bore you to tears explaining.* It also doesn't make the show not entertaining, not fun to watch, and utterly devoid of any educational value. I'd prefer to put a hypothetical 10 year old down in front of that for an hour a week than Mama June: From Hot to Not. If nothing else it can be a really great way to get people curious about things they don't know about and a good way to dip your toes into a subject. But if you try to cite an episode of Mythbusters in your online argument about japanese katana smithing or whatever you're going to look like a dork and probably be wrong in a ton of ways. *edit: and honestly even non-celebrity machinists will tear their hair out at what Adam does, or at least our own OSHA thread seems to think he's a walking ball of terrible practices and awful degloving injuries waiting to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Another way to put it: if "slavery" was the cause of the US Civil War, why wasn't it the cause of the English Civil War, or the Toluid Civil War, or the Civil Wars of the Tetrarchy. After all, 17th century England, 13th century Mongolia, and 4th century Rome all had practiced slavery. Just thinking like a scientist, if "slavery" is enough to explain one civil war it should be enough to explain other civil wars, and I don't think it is, so that means having to think through a little more how you explain the US Civil War. It's fair enough for a basic 101 explanation, and it isn't false, but to the curious mind you need a deeper explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
The Flag Raising is so obvious I started looking at the Desert Storm picture to make sure it wasn't a candid shot of Timothy McVeigh or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Just thought of a good analogy for this stuff: It's not just the OSHA thread. He admits he comes from a culture of don't worry about the consequences, just get it done. On multiple occasions he has stated he doesn't follow proper safety practices. And consensus is that he's more likely to find a way to die that's more horrifying than the Byford Dolphin accident than die of degloving.* *If you don't follow the OSHA thread, do not google the Byford Dolphin accident or what degloving means. Both are really horrifying and google will gladly serve up pictures that will ruin your day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Another way to put it: if "slavery" was the cause of the US Civil War, why wasn't it the cause of the English Civil War, or the Toluid Civil War, or the Civil Wars of the Tetrarchy. After all, 17th century England, 13th century Mongolia, and 4th century Rome all had practiced slavery. Uh what? That doesn't logically follow at all. I can say that X person was killed by a car crash but that doesn't imply every dead person who drove at some point must have been killed by a car. Your argument would be far more compelling if you discuss the countries that successfully got rid of slavery without having a civil war. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Can you really get good history from a podcast? I listen to a lot of this stuff and have to imagine I would roll off the side of the road Toonces-style if I tried to listen to something more academic. Seconding Byzantium and Friends, it's a podcast where an academic historian interviews other academic (mostly) historians, and they discuss their recent work. It's very solid, though it's obviously not narrative on a single topic. Cyrano4747 posted:You kind of answered it yourself with the other factors. The other one of these I like is the First Crusade; we have a bunch of Christian warriors going off to liberate the holy city of Jerusalem, which I feel is most of the explanation you get about it in pop history, or say, a Paradox Game. But why does that happen in 1099, some four centuries after the city was taken by non-Christians?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 20:24
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Some comments on my request about Trotsky, in order of importance. 1) I know that, after listening to any single source, I should look for a second source. And I'm fully aware that podcasts can be bad sources. That was the main thrust of my post. I've learned a tiny bit about Trotsky, and I want to learn more. 2) In discussions about Mike Duncan, many people have said his Rome podcast had many errors. However, the same people have praised his Revolutions podcast. And his books published in the last few years (one on the late Roman Republic, and a biography of the Marquis de Lafayette) have gained a lot of positive reviews. 3) If the Revolutions podcast (and Extra History, and the British History Podcast) have done anything good, it's that they've encouraged me to explore historical events that I knew very little about. Duncan gave me a basic understanding of anarchism vs communism, framed as Bakunin (a name I'd never heard before) vs Marx. He also gave me a limited understanding of the Russian Revolution. 4) My knowledge of Trotsky, for example, was limited to (a)he and Stalin hated each other, and (b)he was killed in Mexico City (I love Mexico, and I've visited the house where Trotsky was killed). Over in the bad place, you often read that the USSR would have been a great place to live if Stalin hadn't come to power. They often also hold up Trotsky as a kindler, gentler alternative to Stalin. I was surprised to learn that there was nothing kind or gentle about him. 5) I now believe that "Trotsky would have been a more just leader than Stalin" is equivalent to "Himmler would have been a more just leader than Hitler" or "John Gacy was nicer than Ted Bundy." 5) In recent episodes, Mike Duncan has really gone out of his way to portray Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as megalomaniacs who were just a tiny bit less brutal than all the previous czars. That might be true, but I'd like to learn more about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1536475785493716993 Dads of the milhist thread: has this happened to you
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:*If you don't follow the OSHA thread, do not google the Byford Dolphin accident or what degloving means. Both are really horrifying and google will gladly serve up pictures that will ruin your day. I don't follow the OSHA thread and I'm not familiar with the Byrford Dolphin incident, but I'm familiar with degloving due to tapirs and 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/__apf__/status/1536475785493716993 Yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:I don't follow the OSHA thread and I'm not familiar with the Byrford Dolphin incident, but I'm familiar with degloving due to tapirs and Byford dolphin is just this video but with two divers instead of a crab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPoVuFtWs_Y Bagheera posted:Over in the bad place, you often read that the USSR would have been a great place to live if Stalin hadn't come to power. They often also hold up Trotsky as a kindler, gentler alternative to Stalin. What is ‘the bad place’? Reddit? Genuinely curious where you’re running into all these trotskyists online
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:What is ‘the bad place’? Reddit? Genuinely curious where you’re running into all these trotskyists online I assume Twitter
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
quote:Byford dolphin is just this video but with two divers instead of a crab: quote:What is ‘the bad place’? Reddit? Genuinely curious where you’re running into all these trotskyists online
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Byford dolphin is just this video but with two divers instead of a crab: Probably CSPAM. Speaking of history with dubious sources it amazes me that there are people out there who will uncritically read a book written by the Soviet Union on why the Holodomor didn't actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Uh what? That doesn't logically follow at all. I can say that X person was killed by a car crash but that doesn't imply every dead person who drove at some point must have been killed by a car. Your argument would be far more compelling if you discuss the countries that successfully got rid of slavery without having a civil war. It's more saying that the existence of car crash survivors means that when explaining why a person died of a car crash, it's worth examining what was different about why one car crash was fatal and another survived. Or put another way, a lot of societies have had slavery, and had civil wars, and slavery did not explain those civil wars. It is a very, very reasonable question to ask "what was different about America and how it practiced slavery that lead to a civil war." And yes there is a compelling question of "why didn't the abolition of slavery in x y or z country cause a civil war." Either way you end up at the same place: even if you accept that the ACW was about slavery (it was), there is definitely further room for elaboration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Another way to put it: if "slavery" was the cause of the US Civil War, why wasn't it the cause of the English Civil War, or the Toluid Civil War, or the Civil Wars of the Tetrarchy. After all, 17th century England, 13th century Mongolia, and 4th century Rome all had practiced slavery. The reason why it wasn't a cause of the English Civil war (and that is just a part of a much greater conflict) was that slavery wasn't a significant pillar of the economy so the other issues pushed it to the side. If the civil war kicked off in the 18th century when the slave trade was a big pillar of the economy then it very well could have been a big issue, but the money was coming in and it took the unceasing efforts of groups of people, including the new evangelical movements, to bring it to an end. The abolitionists were spread out throughout the country, along with those who benefited so there were no easy to draw lines between the two camps. UCL has mapped the compensation payments paid to slave owners after it was banned in the British Empire (the compensation was a compromise that stopped and chance of challenging the legality of the emancipation). https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/maps/britain A very interesting look as to how much the slave trade was an investment vehicle. Human suffering turned into lines on a ledger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
What's the plane in the survivorship bias meme? I figured it was a b-25 but some of them have the dorsal turret a lot further forward while others look like it's in the right spot
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:So, I can't really comment on the Russian chunk you're asking about because I just don't know the literature, but taking a glance at his section on 1848 it's not bad, but no great. In particular I'll note how many of the books he's got up there that were written before 1990. There was a LOT of work done on the 1848 Revolutions - especially the ones in the German states - in the 90s and early 00s and just in general after people started looking more at culture. Working class culture in particular and the way it played into revolutionary movements was a big thing in those circles at that time. Thank you. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the sourcing for the earlier foci especially had more missteps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:What's the plane in the survivorship bias meme? I figured it was a b-25 but some of them have the dorsal turret a lot further forward while others look like it's in the right spot Lockheed Hudson   
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:What's the plane in the survivorship bias meme? I figured it was a b-25 but some of them have the dorsal turret a lot further forward while others look like it's in the right spot The one on wikipedia is a Lockheed Ventura, if you look at the details for the image it includes the source. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Survivorship-bias.svg 
PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jun 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
I don't think it's a horrifyingly wrong historical take to make comparisons between the czarist repressions and Red Terror, though pretty much every Bolshevik in the leadership approved of harsh measures to protect their regime and win the civil war. Trotsky as a uniquely evil mastermind is a strange characterization but he had no problem using the Cheka to enforce order, same as the others. His leadership definitely helped the Soviets win the civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't think it's a horrifyingly wrong historical take to make comparisons between the czarist repressions and Red Terror, though pretty much every Bolshevik in the leadership approved of harsh measures to protect their regime and win the civil war. Trotsky as a uniquely evil mastermind is a strange characterization but he had no problem using the Cheka to enforce order, same as the others. His leadership definitely helped the Soviets win the civil war. I think really the most important question would be, "Would Trotsky have continued the practice of Soviet leadership and authority originating from the Politburo as a council of peers; or would he have adopted the Cult of Personality ala Stalin?" the difference basically being "Like the Khrushchev era" or "Stalin but worse?" Would he have been Russia's Deng Xiaopeng? I suppose could be another way of asking that question maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Probably CSPAM. oh please go into cspam and tell them they're all trotskyists lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Whether you do or don't post in CSPAM, this is not a good place to talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 02:48
|
|
