Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

i say swears online posted:

yeah i guess there are many peoples like the kashubians who never had a large enough presence to attain their own nation-state

Au contraire



Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

i say swears online posted:

not directly but the WW2 occupation of both iceland and denmark by the two sides of the war placed iceland firmly in the atlantacist camp and they severed any remaining ties from after WW1 I think

Maybe the Danes should have actually formed a government in exile and fought the Nazis? Just spitballing here.

"The Act of Union, signed on 1 December 1918 by Icelandic and Danish authorities, recognized Iceland as a fully sovereign state (the Kingdom of Iceland), joined with Denmark in a personal union with the Danish king. Iceland established its own flag and asked Denmark to represent its foreign affairs and defense interests. The Act would be up for revision in 1940 and could be revoked three years later if agreement was not reached. The Act was approved by 92.6% of Icelandic voters (turnout at 43.8%) in a referendum on 19 October 1918. Historian Guđmundur Hálfdanarson interprets this low turnout as a sign that Icelandic voters did not consider the referendum of importance.

Consistent with the transfer of sovereignty in 1918, the Supreme Court of Iceland was established in 1920, which meant that Icelanders were in charge of all three branches of the Icelandic government.

Union through the Danish king was finally abolished altogether in 1944 during the occupation of Denmark by Nazi Germany, when the Alţing declared the founding of the Republic of Iceland. A referendum on 20–23 May 1944 to abolish the Union with Denmark was approved by 99.5% of voters in a 98.4% turnout."

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

The Danes were pretty lovely though. Not that it was a reason to peel off Iceland, which I agree was cynical and deliberate, but also Denmark did suck in WW2.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

A Buttery Pastry posted:

You're just mad that we're the only occupied country that can honestly say it opposed the Holocaust.

99% of Jews rescued is incredible, ngl.

Considering that the Baltic states are also just across the sea from Sweden... it really makes you wonder how that statistic was inverted.

:thunk:

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

A Buttery Pastry posted:

The American way of using forks

How do other people use folks? How do Americans use forks?

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Some Guy TT posted:

the actual dividing line shouldnt be based on dates which were arbitrarily invented by the papacy to deceive us but on whether the historical content is closer to an epstein conspiracy theory explainer or boring modern communism

pretty sure the main reason the threads have such different regulars is because those arent really overlapping cspam cliques

Huh?

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

A Buttery Pastry posted:

American-style:
Fork in left, knife in right, cut off a piece of food for consumption
Lay down knife to indicate that you're a civilized person not about to attack other dinner guests
Transfer fork to your right, and stab the food before shoving it in your face
Transfer fork to your left, and pick up the knife again for more cutting

European-style:
Fork in left, knife in right, cut off a piece of food for consumption
Stab the food and put it in your mouth/push the food onto the fork and shovel it into your mouth

Some American writers pretend Europeans place the tines down when pushing food onto the fork, but that's fake. I mean, I guess some upper-class freaks might be doing that, but that's hardly fair to lay on an entire continent.

Wait! Are you joking about how Americans eat?!

:psyduck:

e: Do Americans use knife rests?

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

It’s that bar in your table setting.

Wait, do Americans use a knife rest?

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Are people joking about not knowing what a knife rest is?




Do they have saucers in America?

and if they do, do people drink tea out of the cup or the saucer?

DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 15:31 on Feb 25, 2024

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Modernity starts in 1517 - 1661. Source:

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:

I'd put the modern age to start with the sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the ascension of Genghis Khan in 1206

I see what you're doing and I don't like it.

I had a professor who thought it was hilarious to use AVC, so we'd be in 2777.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

FirstnameLastname posted:

British "culture"

Yank culture.

Canadian and American manners, according to David Hackett Fischer, differ because Canada was settled by Britons who arrived during the Georgian era, and brought language and customs directly from the Old Sod. Canada, Fischer says, was founded as a mirror of the Britain of the 1750's, while our American cousins were a century or more in the past. Because of the close association between Canada and the mother country, and British manners being de rigueur until the mid 1960's, while occasionally "provincial", Canadians generally kept up with British custom. By comparison, direct cultural exchange was severed at the moment of America's inception, and so as Charles Dickens observed in his 1842 travels in the Americas, the Americans were a people out of time.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Chinese and Japanese depictions of western history and myths are always interesting like that.

Receptions of Greek and Roman Antiquity in East Asia

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Art reach its zenith with Lady Butler.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Don’t you uh, live in a place that saw intense fighting in 1942 and 44-45? You could just look out the window and imagine what the fighting between the US Army and IJA was like.

It’s like living near the Queenston Heights and taking a vacation to Washington to imagine what fighting the Americans was like.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

The Three Battles of El Alamein by Mario Montanari is a translation of the Italian official history and is very interesting.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

AFancyQuestionMark posted:

can anyone here recommend some decent documentary / video content about the history of the bolsheviks and the october revolution? I've read a few books about it, but want something more audio visually stimulating. everything I could find is ether heavily tinted with a liberal bias or is from a reactionary monarchist perspective (what the hell)

I also understand russian if that helps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHxQSVD_rfA

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:

What military unit traveled the furthest distance just to get killed? Unit, not individual persons. My vote is the Russian fleet sailing from the Baltic to get sunk at Tsushima

That would probably be the answer, or the cargo submarines that travelled between Japan and Germany with jet engines and blueprints and stuff.

e: maybe von Spee's squadron and other cruisers on foreign station during the First World War.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

bedpan posted:

it was a thing for people to say XYZ ancestor was "Cherokee" as a way to excuse what was seen as obvious nonwhite characteristics

On Vancouver Island, they would say "Hawaiian", rather than coastal Indian.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Raskolnikov38 posted:

did you tell her about the kingdom of kongo and alfonso the first

Weka posted:

It doesn't even really have a broken continuity afaik, I understand Jews to be descended from the inhabitants of... get this... Judah. I guess there was a unified kingdom for what, a generation?

Less than 50 years.

If you're in a history program, you can get fully funded research trips, grants, mentorship, connected to publishers, if you churn out inane pablum like "The History of Jews in the Land of Israel". It drives me up the wall.

DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 12:58 on Apr 16, 2024

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

vyelkin posted:

lol my dude saying that the entire purpose of Western scholarship is to discredit communism by dragging Stalin and Losurdo is the path to enlightenment on this fact just reveals a lack of knowledge about the actual academic history on this subject, which isn't surprising if you're mainly getting your impression of it from Losurdo himself. Losurdo's presentation of the historical literature is extremely one-sided, in that he takes the most polemical anticommunist writing he can find and pokes holes in it without ever showing a grasp of the much larger historical literature based on serious academic research, often written in direct response to the polemical anticommunists getting stuff wrong.

Losurdo never resolves the basic problem that pointing out flaws in Robert Conquest, Anne Applebaum, and the Black Book of Communism doesn't mean that Stalin Was Good, Actually, and he fails to solve that basic problem (and along the way inspires people to conclude that all Western scholarship is specifically intended to destroy Stalin's reputation and undermine communism) because on most points he limits his research to reading and critiquing the most vehement anticommunists. For instance, in trying to understand conditions in the USSR he cites Hitler and Trotsky hundreds of times while almost never citing the historians whose years of research in the archives proved Conquest wrong in the first place. But this is something you only understand if you already know the literature, because Losurdo never gives a full picture of any of these debates. Instead, he presents a caricature of the scholarship on Soviet history that can easily convince readers who don't know the full picture that it's completely one-sided and remains dominated by anticommunists adhering to the discredited totalitarian model, which is not the case.

To give one example, it's literally not possible to get a handle on the complex, nuanced debate that historians have had about the Purges from Losurdo because, while he cites Conquest approximately 30 times over the course of the book and quotes a blurb from the back of one of Conquest's books to claim that the historical profession thinks Conquest is the world's greatest historian, he never once mentions Arch Getty, the social historian of the Purges who very effectively challenged Conquest's interpretation in the 80s. Or similarly, the preeminent social historian of the Stalin era, Sheila Fitzpatrick, someone who early in her career was demonized as a Soviet sympathizer by the anticommunists because she dared to do research on what life was actually like in the USSR rather than just believe all the worst stories made up about it, appears in the book once while Hannah Arendt appears 46 times, because Losurdo is far more interested in critiquing anticommunist philosophers than in accurately presenting Soviet history. It's not the gospel truth that the evil anticommunist historians have been hiding from readers, it's often just bad history that fails to demonstrate a thorough recounting of the events he's writing about or an understanding of the debates into which he's trying to intervene.

The argument's been made that purging (as in removing people from their posts or from the Party, not as in exiling or executing them) was a necessary component of Soviet governance because the USSR lacked other political mechanisms for turnover in political positions. According to this view, without some kind of internal pluralism or regular turnover, there's no established way to get rid of people who are bad at their jobs, which means people who are wrong for their positions for one reason or another stay in place longer than they should, often until they leave their offices feet first. This is hardly a problem unique to the Soviet Union, but people used to say that Soviet purges were an ad hoc way of achieving this and enacting the kind of turnover that's necessary to keep a government ticking over as the years go by, while also ensuring that the turnover put in place people who would be loyal to whichever leadership was enacting the current purge rather than a past leadership or a potential (real or imagined) opposing leadership.

From that point of view I could see the argument that a tapering off of purges (again, as in firing people, not as in shooting them) in the later decades contributed to the Soviet Union's problems. One problem of course is that identifying who is or isn't bad at their job isn't straightforward, and we can see failures on that end in both directions--too lenient under Brezhnev with virtually no turnover in positions at all no matter how incompetent one was, too strict under Stalin with perfectly loyal and productive people being executed or imprisoned in the enormously wasteful forced labour economy for no reason. It's hard to say the mechanism ever really worked according to the theory, though it's a comprehensible argument as to why it might happen in the first place.

But it's strange to extend that argument to saying the problem was that Khrushchev and Gorbachev didn't get purged, since the implicit conclusion of that argument is that Brezhnev had the right ideas--and yet it was Brezhnev who rarely purged anybody, let people stay in their offices for life, and got rid of guys like Khrushchev who wanted turnover in Party positions (one of the nails in Khrushchev's coffin was proposing term limits). It seems to boil down to "I don't like the way Khrushchev and Gorbachev's policies ended up, therefore if only the USSR had purged the right people instead of the wrong people everything would have been fine" which is quite an idealistic view of Soviet history.

Great post. I don't know much about the subject, but I appreciated how you laid out your reasoning.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Raskolnikov38 posted:

you have an optimistic view of western academia if you dont think swarms of applebaums and synders are in the future

I'll give you an example. There's a researcher who is working on Canadian radicals who were in the Winnipeg General Strike, fought for the Spanish Republicans, and then were parachuted into Yugoslavia to assist the Partisans. That's very cool work on Canada's left wing history. He's passionate about it, and it's something that gets basically no attention in Canadian public history. All three episodes, let alone any connection, are downplayed.

He has been assigned to work on the Victims of Communism monument.

You see? It doesn't matter if you're an academic who is taking a very "pro" communist position, they can say, "and now, write hagiography about the Ustaše and Chetniks" and your job now is to turn out work contrary to what you believe in. It's a very effective way to shut down dissent imo.

Whereas the Applebaums and Snyders have been eagerly riding that train all the way from their undergrad Ukrainian Studies programs, getting all of the grants and scholarships, internships, fellowships, all the way through being very excited to get to work and rehabilitate the Waffen SS.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

Raskolnikov38 posted:

applebaum at least hasn't held a professorship ever but synder is over at yale churning out god knows how many anti-communist grad students

I would hope that most of his grad students end up in think tanks, the state department and CIA-linked NGOs rather than the academy, though it's probably worse for the world.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

My understanding is that it’s very hard to find stuff in English that’s not “confessions of an evil brainwashed commie Red Guard who fled China and is now an expert in radicalism at Yale” or whatever? Like the Great Purge, 1956, 1968, Tiananmen , the “Holodomir”, the GULAG system, it’s just too useful to allow the sort of narrative monopoly to break up.

Because there was never a case that China was an aggressive threat with a record in other countries “captive nations”, my impression was The Cultural Revolution was vital in demonizing China because “Oh yeah? Look what they did to themselves! (Imagine what they’ll do to us!)”

DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 12:32 on Apr 24, 2024

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

This might merit a post later where I pull up the literature, but the Cultural Revolution has another, I guess more dry and academic use?

I don't know if people know this, but when British and French troops plundered the Summer Palace in 1860, over a million objects were taken. A large part of this was organized by James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin. His father was the one who stole/saved (more on that in a moment) the Elgin Marbles from Greece. The items taken from the Summer Palace are some of the most prestigious and significant in the holdings of major western museums, it's a fairly big deal.

More was taken during the Boxer Rebellion where after the Peking Legations were relieved, Beijing was looted and punitive expeditions organized all over central and northern China. Many of these were planned with the participation of western diplomats, missionaries and army officers who dabbled in archeology, as educated men did at the time, so either expressly aimed at demonstrating their authority over the Chinese through cultural vandalism (the German expeditions organized in one province zigzagged between the oldest temples and palaces) or did so incidentally as anything interesting recovered along the way was sent back.

Through this, the Royal Ontario Museum added to its collection an entire Ming tomb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPGjR6ghHic




and as a provincial museum (literally) that pales in comparison to the British Museum and the great museums of Europe. There is lots and lots of Chinese stuff in Western Museums.

Now, Greece and Egypt have fought for many, many, years to have culturally significant objects repatriated. It's a whole field of study, with books, conferences, papers on international law. Until like 1960 the argument against doing so made by the British, French, and Germans was vae victis. The holdings in European museums were the prizes of imperialism and colonialism (which is good). Then, until maybe 2000 or so, the argument was these countries were too stupid/primitive/poor to really have custodianship over some of the finest pieces of art and history in the world. Yes, it's awfully sad that our globe bestriding Empire rifled through the pockets of prostrate Egypt, but that was then and this is now, and can we really trust them with the Rosetta Stone?

After 2000, it's a bit more sophisticated, in part because Egypt now trains at least among the world's greatest Egyptologists, who are fluent in French, English and German as well as their native tongue, and has invested in some of the greatest research institutes and museums of Egyptology in the world. It's much harder to say they couldn't do a good job when they've taken the lead on all digs in Egypt since the 2000's or so, or at least, have experts overseeing them. This had started in part because of what may have been archeology's greatest hour where international politics are concerned - The Rescue of Nubian Monuments and Sites, the International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia. It was a big deal, like immeasurably so, and removed any reasonable belief that Egypt couldn't protect its own history, it did more than any country in history in the world's largest and most ambitious program of archeology ever. It's never been rivalled.

Greece, however, remains broke, and they keep losing/breaking/corruptly selling on the international art market, so their chances of getting anything really important are slim. With Britain quitting the EU, ironically, they're less able to run interference for the Elgin Marbles, so we'll see.

Anyway, this led to a movement in Britain in the 2000's to say, this is world history, it belongs to the world. The British Museum is a global tourist destination, London is a global city, so if Greeks want to see Greek objects, the best place to do so is in London. Actually, it would be unfair for the rest of the world for these collections to be in Athens. This is showcased in how they talk about the issue in the hugely influential BBC Series A History of the World in 100 Objects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFAi-jj4xE

You can extrapolate this to how liberals talk about the world at the End of History generally. We feel pangs of guilt over plundering the world, but we have the plundered artifacts, and the wealth from colonialism and imperialism, so we're just best positioned to preserve and share these objects to the world. We're doing everyone a favour, if you really think about it. History is over, we happened to have all of this stuff, but we're enlightened and think at a multinational, multicultural level, so no, West Africa is not getting any of the poo poo the British and French stole, and it's for their own good (though we feel bad about taking it).

I won't get into it here, but this will drive you crazy when you see how they talk about the destruction and plundering of Syrian and Iraqi antiquities through ISIS, and though less sought after on the art market, on a larger scale in Libya. They're bemoaning poo poo they did as a reason why it's important that we preserve the Rules Based International Order, who can take care of history, unlike tragically failed states. What happened to Libya in the first place? Either it's not mentioned, or it gets the same passive voice as events in 1860. That's history, what we care about is preserving objects now.

Okay, so that sets the stage. This post has gone on longer than I like and I have a meeting at 830 so I'll very quickly explain how this relates to the Cultural Revolution. Because of the Century of Humiliation, pretty much nobody is allowed to dig in China. And, because the tomb of some minor princess or whatever was opened in the 70's and all of the artifacts destroyed, which you will read about everywhere, China is pretty conservative about digging themselves. They have reasons, like they'd like the science of archeology to advance to a place they're comfortable with, since you can only dig a trench once, right?

They have left most of the terracotta army un excavated because they haven't been able to preserve the pigments from fading once exposed to air, so in the future they'd like to make sure they can do it right. Considering how much stuff you go through in the Near East that was discarded or broken in some dig in the 1860's because people were focused exclusively on treasure, you can hardly blame them. Even Pompeii and Herculaneum have suspended all new digs (since 2006 iirc), because of how much is destroyed each time. Crete is the same, where you can dig in minor sites but the prizes are being left covered up because the site of Minos was treated haphazardly in the past. English barrows, I believe same deal. Yes, Sutton Hoo was impressive, and produced treasure, but if we want to be scientific, nobody is risking losing this stuff forever.

Okay, but - what gets taught here, and is in the books, papers etc. is that the Cultural Revolution proves China is too deliberately and carelessly destructive to be entrusted with their own history.

I really have to dip but it's worth discussing.

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

War and Pieces posted:

I'd imagine that someone of Chinese descent living in Ontario may appreciate not having to go all the way to China to see an entire Ming tomb.

and I get that, for sure, but there are things that China has asked for back from more august museums that got better loot, and they get the same answer about the British Museum bringing Chinese history to them.

Like “Land Back”, it’s stilly to demand absolutes that rapidly become appeals to blood and soil, but if China is asking that specific collections be repatriated, can we say they don’t have good enough museums or that tourists don’t visit Beijing as a world city?

I think probably exchange is a fair option, that German museums can keep their holdings while providing Chinese museums with equivalent German antiquities.

DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 16:43 on Apr 24, 2024

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024


Were Canadians known for this in the 1940's, or is it an oblique reference to the French Canadians?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DJJIB-DJDCT
Feb 1, 2024

gradenko_2000 posted:

Oh my god once you know this is complete bullshit you can't unsee it

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply