|
so what are museum recommendations everyone has? the oakland museum has a nice permanent californian history section along with a rotating set of exhibitions. the deutsche historiches museum in berlin is very nice as well
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:so what are museum recommendations everyone has? the oakland museum has a nice permanent californian history section along with a rotating set of exhibitions. the deutsche historiches museum in berlin is very nice as well The Mütter Museum in Philadelphia is delightful though not necessarily for everyone as it's a collection of medical oddities and whatnot, and I'd be remiss not to mention the Fairbanks Museum in St. Johnsbury, VT (as I was a junior curator there when I was a kid). I've heard good things about the Smithsonian's new African American History Museum, but haven't been to DC since it opened so I can't speak to it first hand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
ok I know this is a dumb question but- lincoln: lib, good, both , neither? Seems like he had a bunch of Problems but at least dicrced himself from the liberal consensus to do the right thing. I guess don't know where exactly American liberal dialogue was and where he was in relation to it
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
lincoln was racist to a degree but did genuinely want to end slavery, hence why he jumped on to the "colonize the slaves to africa" train until mid-1862. after the border states refused to considered compensated emancipation and african-american groups told him to gently caress off with the colonization schemes was when he embraced freeing all the slaves in the confederacy. and then after he had safely secured his second term he fully supported the 13th amendment. lincoln's post-war plans for the confederacy were awful and p lib-ish. his proposal would have seen confederate states re-admitted to the union once 10% of the pre-war voting population had signed a loyalty oath which would have seen the south reclaimed by the redeemers even earlier
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:actually all military history is bad military history is cool because you learn important lessons like: --never trust the english
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lincoln's post-war plans for the confederacy were awful and p lib-ish. his proposal would have seen confederate states re-admitted to the union once 10% of the pre-war voting population had signed a loyalty oath which would have seen the south reclaimed by the redeemers even earlier One of Lincoln's major character flaws was his unreasonable optimism toward white southerners, first displayed in his expectations that enough would oppose secession to defeat it, then again in his naive expectation regarding southern unionists during the war's first two years, and finally in how he figured the postwar union could be easily put back together again and the defeated south would just accept the verdict of the battlefield and the reconstruction amendments/reality to follow it. Not to be more acceptably vulgar, but one imagines the second-to-last thing to past through his mind was "oh gently caress, they weren't kidding after all."
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:military history is cool because you learn important lessons like: they are a cruel and brutish race, with a sort of low cunning given to deceit and betrayal
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:so what are museum recommendations everyone has? the oakland museum has a nice permanent californian history section along with a rotating set of exhibitions. the deutsche historiches museum in berlin is very nice as well Houston Museum of Art had a superb collection of mesoamerican art when i passed through several years ago e: R. Mute posted:actually all military history is bad you will take my doorstopper Theodore Ayrault Dodge tomes from my cold, dead hands
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
last history book I read was tresspassers on the roof of the world by Peter hopirk, it was pretty rad. best part was where the Brits said "lmao we don't need our big boy artillery for these primitives" and left it behind only to immediately get stuck at a mountain doom fortress their light guns couldn't scratch end result was an officer than turned out to be a famous mountain climber, a bunch of ghurkahs, and Sikhs from mountain provinces climbed up a 250ft cliff in the middle of the night then had a 12 hour running gunfight through the halls until they could reach a gate to open, which is probably one of the most metals things I've read in a history book. Shame about the imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:so what are museum recommendations everyone has? the oakland museum has a nice permanent californian history section along with a rotating set of exhibitions. the deutsche historiches museum in berlin is very nice as well not exactly museums but Virginia has a bunch of good historical sites worth visiting. for my birthday awhile ago my friends and i went to Pope's Creek plantation, where George Washington was born (but didn't live, his family moved when he was three). I read a book about its institutional history in grad school in my public history seminar, and it was really interesting with a lot of detailed research, so I really wanted to see how it was today. its a little disappointing in winter but in spring/summer it has a semi-functional farm that, when we actually funded public historical sites, used to be fully functional with plowing oxen, costume reenactors, the whole nine yards. its still worth visiting though, because the curation is exceptionally good, like it has a bunch of paintings of Washington with little plaques that ask the viewer questions about the intention behind the representation, distorting figures for nation-building narratives, and hagiographies and was really exceptionally good despite being threadbare also the museum of the American Indian (I think is what its called) in Washington DC is really good, it has some neat exhibits and the big room on depictions of native americans in popular culture is extremely well done with lots of interesting, well-contextualized artifacts. honestly the big museums in DC are all pretty good and the udvar-hazy center is supposed to be super cool, but I haven't been alternately, many historical sites that are owned and maintained by private entities are fuckin terrible, like monticello, where Jefferson's descendants have a major interest in the day-to-day of the place (or at least did until recently). it does a lot to paper over slavery and really tries to obfuscate the dreadful feelings inherent to a charnel house thousands and thousands of enslaved people passed through over the decades by talking about the habits of the white aristocracy. its really, really bad and you could come away from it genuinely believing that many of Jefferson's actions were motivated by genuine affection for his enslaved children born from the repeated rapes he committed because he did things like let them live the last half of their lives in town "free" while refusing to formally manumit them. the tour guide also spent awhile specifically trying to make it seem like the slaves had the agency to "better themselves" by spending their theoretical days of rest laboring for a pittance in the dangerous metal shops and stuff. it was really naseauting anyway, if you ever have time and you're around Virginia / DC, there's a ton of good stuff worth visiting
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:ok I know this is a dumb question but- lincoln: lib, good, both , neither? Seems like he had a bunch of Problems but at least dicrced himself from the liberal consensus to do the right thing. I guess don't know where exactly American liberal dialogue was and where he was in relation to it antebellum U.S. politics and the various left-right groupings and positions were so radically different compared to our modern context and expectations that its more helpful to just learn the various permutations of Whig and Democrat thought than try to fit them into a modern "liberal" framework and judge based on that. the good news is that whigs and democrats were really interesting in their own right e: check out The Political Culture of the American Whigs by Daniel Walker Howe, Affairs of Party by Jean Baker, and Northern Men with Southern Loyalties by Michael Todd Landis. also What Hath God Wrought by Howe is a great intro to the period tatankatonk has issued a correction as of 17:39 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:antebellum U.S. politics and the various left-right groupings and positions were so radically different compared to our modern context and expectations that its more helpful to just learn the various permutations of Whig and Democrat thought than try to fit them into a modern "liberal" framework and judge based on that. the good news is that whigs and democrats were really interesting in their own right Thanks. I'm kinda dimly aware of this which is why I asked. I'd just finished Liberalism: a Counter History which argues that theres been an ugly (and frequently dominant) strain of liberalism for white rich people which was where the slavers drew their arguments from. Lincoln seems to generally strike me as more on the radical side of the liberal spectrum, but I dont know where he fits in the discourse of politics at the time
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
One thing to add to the Lincoln chat, is that despite his (many) shortcomings, his position during the war was sufficient for Karl Marx to write to him in 1864 on behalf of the International Workingmen's Associationquote:Sir:
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
since it came up in the discord i'm just going to post my favorite civil war related death:quote:On June 14, 1864, Polk was scouting enemy positions near Marietta, Georgia, with his staff when he was killed in action by a Federal 3-inch (76 mm) shell at Pine Mountain.[26] The artillery fire was initiated when Sherman spotted a cluster of Confederate generals — Polk, William J. Hardee, and Johnston, with their staffs — in an exposed area. He pointed them out to Maj. Gen. Oliver Otis Howard, commander of the IV Corps, and ordered him to fire upon them. Battery I of the 1st Ohio Light Artillery, commanded by Capt. Hubert Dilger, obeyed the order within minutes. The first round from the battery came close and a second came even closer, causing the men to disperse. The third shell struck Polk's left arm, went through his chest, and exited hitting his right arm, then exploded against a tree; it nearly cut Polk in two.[27] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_Polk#Atlanta_Campaign_and_death
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
why is this thread not just repostings of kitty history?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Lvv1f5Qu4
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
my favorite civil war general is ambrose burnside dude was thoroughly mediocre and borderline incompetent, like most civil war generals. but unlike most of the rest, he knew it every time someone else was in charge of him, they managed to be an even bigger fuckup than he was. and then they'd inevitably get sacked and the leadership would repeatedly try to promote him until he reluctantly accepted. he'd then immediately lead the army on some colossal fuckup, get demoted, try to resign, and be told by Lincoln that he shouldn't quit. rinse and repeat until the war was over
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:my favorite civil war general is ambrose burnside the goon general
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
also burnside's plan for fredericksburg was sound. the war department just completely hosed him over and didn't get him the pontoon bridges he needed until after Lee had nearly a fortnight to fortify the area granted he was still stupid af for ordering the attack after the bridges arrived. but had they been there his attack probably would have been a success
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:also burnside's plan for fredericksburg was sound. the war department just completely hosed him over and didn't get him the pontoon bridges he needed until after Lee had nearly a fortnight to fortify the area Similarly, his plan at Petersburg wasn't that bad of an idea, it was just the execution was horribly botched by subordinates, the most important of whom was blackout drunk at the time the crater mine was detonated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
ambrose burnside: the "oh come the gently caress on" of generalship
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
idk if this is the correct thread but like why is contemporary russia so racist and homophobic. were things equally lovely under the ussr also how are there literal russian and ukrainan neo-Nazis? I understand hardcore nationalists but werent russians and other slavs selected for extermination and slavery under generalplan ost cargo cult has issued a correction as of 02:29 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
they pretend the slavic parts of hitler's geneocides never happened
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:idk if this is the correct thread but like why is contemporary russia so racist and homophobic. were things equally lovely under the ussr I think something about the Russian landscape just darkens their hearts. They've been like that for two centuries ----------------
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:ambrose burnside: the "oh come the gently caress on" of generalship to be fair, that was exactly what lincoln wanted, he was sick of mcclellan dithering and finding excuses not to fight, lincoln figured that bloodbaths would hurt the Confederates more than his own troops
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Similarly, his plan at Petersburg wasn't that bad of an idea, it was just the execution was horribly botched by subordinates, the most important of whom was blackout drunk at the time the crater mine was detonated. that's the part that makes me laugh he knew he sucked and honestly tried to make up for that, and every single time someone else would completely gently caress up whatever he tried don't forget that he spent a ton of time meticulously training a specific division to fight that battle and then Meade and Grant told him a few hours before the battle he couldn't use that division because it had black troops
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:they pretend the slavic parts of hitler's geneocides never happened Had it not, there's a pretty good chance much, perhaps most, of Ukraine would have rallied to the Axis cause. Main Paineframe posted:that's the part that makes me laugh Grant, in his memoirs, says of Burnside: quote:General Burnside was an officer who was generally liked and respected. He was not, however, fitted to command an army. No one knew this better than himself. He always admitted his blunders, and extenuated officers under him beyond what they were entitled to. It was hardly his fault that he was ever assigned to a separate command. Captain_Maclaine has issued a correction as of 03:44 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Israel has neo-nazis too. It doesn't matter how unlikely, some people will always find a reason to pick up the swastika.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Smirking_Serpent posted:Israel has neo-nazis too. It doesn't matter how unlikely, some people will always find a reason to pick up the swastika. From Dorothy Thompson's 1941 essay, Who Goes Nazi? Dorothy Thompson posted:It is preposterous to think that they are divided by any racial characteristics. Germans may be more susceptible to Nazism than most people, but I doubt it. Jews are barred out, but it is an arbitrary ruling. I know lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance. There are Jews who have repudiated their own ancestors in order to become “Honorary Aryans and Nazis”; there are full-blooded Jews who have enthusiastically entered Hitler’s secret service. Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
I love that Lost Cause authors poo poo all over Gen. James Longstreet and place the blame pretty much entirely on him for Gettysburg. Naturally, this animus is pretty rooted in that after the war he actually tried to make amends and wound up leading an African-American militia against the anti-Reconstruction White League at the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874. Personally, I've always been rather fond of Gen. Henry Thomas for making the decision to support the Union and causing his family to disown him completely, with his sisters even rejecting monetary aid after the war because they refused to acknowledge his existence. He also completely called out the Lost Cause bullshit only a few years after the war: "The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:I love that Lost Cause authors poo poo all over Gen. James Longstreet and place the blame pretty much entirely on him for Gettysburg. Naturally, this animus is pretty rooted in that after the war he actually tried to make amends and wound up leading an African-American militia against the anti-Reconstruction White League at the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874. The other former Confederate who usually ends up being mentioned alongside Longstreet is John Mosby, who was so gifted a cavalry raider that he earned the nickname "The Grey Ghost." After the war, like Longstreet, he committed the twin cardinal sins of acknowledging the war had been about slavery the whole time ("I've always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I've never heard of any other cause than slavery"), and joining the Republican party explicitly to support Grant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
this whole interview ftw https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...ity-part-1.html i really wish there were more good historians writing about debt, power relations and blasting apart the myth of "free" (to turn everyone else into debt slaves) republics written by oligarchs
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:I love that Lost Cause authors poo poo all over Gen. James Longstreet and place the blame pretty much entirely on him for Gettysburg. Naturally, this animus is pretty rooted in that after the war he actually tried to make amends and wound up leading an African-American militia against the anti-Reconstruction White League at the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874. Longstreet actually had some really bad ideas at Gettysburg, namely putting the ANV between the Army of Potomac and Washington DC and he isn't the super god-like defensive master that some post-Killer Angel/Gettysburg movie people made him out to be that being said though lee vetoed his ideas and Lee was basically 95% responsible for Gettysburg
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Also as a kid, I loved the 6 hour long battle scenes in Gettysburg on history channel I watched Pickett's charge scene like 5 times or something
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
I've always wanted a big sprawling book about the war after the war: how all the Civil War generals and their partisans fought for decades over who gets the credit/blame for what. How wartime rear end-covering and finger-pointing transitions to mudslinging, memoir-writing, and politicking. The war itself was only a few years prelude to something like six decades of steadily aging white men either making GBS threads on each other or praising each other for often the same actions in the same battles. Reputations rose and fell. It's way more epic than bang boom walk across the field whoops we're all dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I've always wanted a big sprawling book about the war after the war: how all the Civil War generals and their partisans fought for decades over who gets the credit/blame for what. How wartime rear end-covering and finger-pointing transitions to mudslinging, memoir-writing, and politicking. The war itself was only a few years prelude to something like six decades of steadily aging white men either making GBS threads on each other or praising each other for often the same actions in the same battles. Reputations rose and fell. It's way more epic than bang boom walk across the field whoops we're all dead. just read Battles & Leaders of the Civil War, it's basically acw generals shitposting at each other
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I've always wanted a big sprawling book about the war after the war: how all the Civil War generals and their partisans fought for decades over who gets the credit/blame for what. How wartime rear end-covering and finger-pointing transitions to mudslinging, memoir-writing, and politicking. The war itself was only a few years prelude to something like six decades of steadily aging white men either making GBS threads on each other or praising each other for often the same actions in the same battles. Reputations rose and fell. It's way more epic than bang boom walk across the field whoops we're all dead. john gibbon's memoirs are a really funny example of this, there's a huge postscript where he's just corresponding with various corps commanders arguing over gettysburg thirty years later
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
what they needed is twitter so they can shitpost at each other and the shitposting will remain for all of history
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_style People at the time basically communicated "no u" when they weren't writing long letters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I've always wanted a big sprawling book about the war after the war: how all the Civil War generals and their partisans fought for decades over who gets the credit/blame for what. How wartime rear end-covering and finger-pointing transitions to mudslinging, memoir-writing, and politicking. The war itself was only a few years prelude to something like six decades of steadily aging white men either making GBS threads on each other or praising each other for often the same actions in the same battles. Reputations rose and fell. It's way more epic than bang boom walk across the field whoops we're all dead. Grant has a good breakdown of his opinion of the major commanders and a surprising number of their subordinates in the last chapters of his memoir, and was remarkably even-handed for a dying man who'd been steadily defamed by not a small number of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 23:58
|
|