Comment by UncleMeat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by UncleMeat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The Renaissance happened in Europe. What non-white voices are you adding to that?

This is a perfect example. People respond to even basic expansion of viewpoints with incredulity.

First, I mentioned women. Gender analysis in mainstream history academia has developed a lot over the last 30 years. "There weren't any women" doesn't pass even a casual glance like "there weren't any poc" does for a renaissance course.

Second, although white voices are obviously the dominant voices of the renaissance, it is important to understand that cross-national communication networks existed during the early-modern era. The story of the introduction of coffee to europe is a classic one where analysis has traditionally focused on the europeans involved but this failed to consider that both sides of the trade were essential to the story. Since it is the renaissance, obviously art and architecture play a huge role. But art and architecture travel between nations and you can't tell the full story of european renaissance art without considering the turks (and others).

I was mostly picking on your example -- the Renaissance happened in Europe, and it was specifically a time when there was relatively little trade between Europe and the east -- a big part of the reason Columbus's journey was funded was to find a way to access eastern trade routes that they'd been cut off from by the Ottomans.

There were a whole bunch of interesting things happening around the world at this time, the peak of the Ming dynasty, ascendance of the Ottomans, the Malian Empire's displacement by Songhai.. they just aren't the Renaissance.

An actual "expansion of viewpoints" would be reading more world history. College-pamphletizing the renaissance is lazy and inaccurate.

The Renaissance lasted for hundreds of years. Communication with people outside europe was a nontrivial thing and excluding it (as has been done deliberately in the past) does history a disservice.

Like I said, this isn't a change for the sake of it. Professionals believe that these analysis methods produce better scholarship and pedagogy than the alternative.

Of course expanding the range of topics offered is a key element of this as well. Unfortunately, universities are truly awful at hiring people who are experts outside european or modern history. My grad school (I did a degree in CS but know a lot of historians) is arguably the strongest program in the country and has one person doing all of China forever. Academics have less flexibility here whereas somebody who is teaching classic "western civ" style courses can expand viewpoints to meet modern scholarship.

I can get on board with most of what you're saying here but I get the impression that a lot of people want to change history as part of a present-day political battle, rather than pursuing a better understanding of history.

Those same people often have a really shallow europe-centric historical understanding (the standard greece->rome->skip 1k years->renaissance->napoleon), so I don't trust them.

Like, Mansa Musa was the richest man on the planet at one point during the time period we're talking. Dude collapsed several economies on his pilgrimage to Mecca by giving away too much gold. Give me that, don't give me Morgan Freeman shoehorned into Robin Hood.

Where do you get that impression? Social media? Blog posts?

I know an unusual number of history academics and I've literally never seen anything other than "pursuing a better understanding of history". I have seen Sean Hannity (literally yes) call out an acquaintances' history class as "unamerican" on national television despite obviously not reading past the class title. This makes me immensely skeptical of people who worry about academia suffering due to injected ideological battles.

Go read some history manuscripts from the 50s if you want to see scholarship suffering due to ideology. Some analysis will be moving along nicely and just swerve hard into idiocy because the author was blinded by their own racism or sexism.

I find this to be an interesting broader problem. For whatever reason people seem to feel like they understand the state of modern humanities or social sciences academia even if they haven't interfaced with faculty but they don't tend to feel these same things about something like math or computer science. This leads to people forming really strong opinions about what it is like inside the ivory tower without actually talking to people.

If that is what you're saying, then I think it's supportable and also that "decolonization" is an unfortunate choice of terminology because it is loaded with connotation and non-neutrality. Language matters, and choosing non-alienating language makes it more inclusive to more participants (including western civ folks).

More rigor, better scholarship, incorporation of more diverse views are all things people can get behind. If the system is open to disputation, feedback, analysis, etc. while pursuing the widest possible range of views out there from under-represented voices, then great. I also want to add that this is also the default mode in academia especially at freer places like the University of Chicago.

If it means preventing disputation on the basis of a person's identity/affiliations, disavowing empiricism and heavily favoring narrative untethered to basic standards of evidence, inserting overt agenda into what ought to be neutral arms-length investigations, then I find myself opposing the approach in the strongest possible terms and will actively work to decenter and dismantle such efforts. This latter approach debases scholarship and amplifies poorly-defended ideas as the norm.

I've seen both approaches but in the academy right now, I see the latter approach being centered, to the detriment of the mission of academia.

> I also want to add that this is also the default mode in academia especially at freer places like the University of Chicago.

My wife is a historian. Her PhD is from arguably the best program in the country. It is not the case that administrations have this as a default option. Look at how hiring works in history departments. Americanists out the wazoo. In both hiring and tenure review, even the best programs still struggle to include analysis beyond traditional western civ style work.

> If it means preventing disputation on the basis of a person's identity/affiliations, disavowing empiricism and heavily favoring narrative untethered to basic standards of evidence, inserting overt agenda into what ought to be neutral arms-length investigations

It doesn't. And spending any amount of time around academics would make it really clear that these concerns are just BS peddled by people who make a living complaining about pinkos in the academy.

Hiring is a fair point. It is one of many factors that affect diversity of views in an institution, and the reasons behind a monoculture in a department are myriad. It is peripheral to the idea of "decolonization" as a methodology or technique though.

I don't think it's BS. I left academia 10 years ago (after a slightly more than a decade in it) but I still have enough connections to it to understand context. I've also studied history from a western civ perspective (academically, through courses at UChicago -- the "Great Books" approach is kind of its thing) and a non-western civ perspective (personally). So I bring those perspectives to the table when I say I support expansion of viewpoints.

At the same time, I have witnessed the sort of thing I mentioned in my 3rd paragraph above some 10 years ago, albeit in a more nascent state. To be fair, these actions are not prevalent among faculty (and it's not pinkos, but amorphous critical theorist types that defy easy categorization), but definitely increasing in prevalence among undergraduate and graduate students. It also depends on the department. This is why something like the Heterodox Academy [1], which is made up of mostly academics, even exists. Whatever misgivings one might have about it, that something like this exists and has a relatively robust membership speaks to a phenomenon that is not isolated.

I do accept your point that not all of academia is like that. I believe we can both be simultaneously correct, but about different facets of academia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_Academy

Without the math, science, and art imported from the rest of the world to Europe, there would have been no Renaissance. Understanding the rest of the world (Levant, India, Africa, China) during this period is key.

For example, during the Renaissance (200 years or so), the primary math textbook in elite European schools were direct translations of an Arabic math textbook brought and taught to Europe by the Moors (Muslim North & Sub-Saharan Africans).

Major historical works were inspired by their presence and contributions, like Shakespeare's Othello (based on 'In Capitano Moro' aka 'A Moorish Captain' which is a work derived from Arabic folktales).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com