Is this doomed to be yet another conservative-oriented board? American historiography and its regulatory institutions, such as the AHA, are still hung up on the collectivist aspect of history. These are people who still think revisionism is a segregated practice/school of history.
Are there any post-structuralist historians here? Where my post-marxist bros at?
Fucking this. The entire internet is full of places where liberals can circle jerk. this place is already turning into a proto-reddit-/leftypol/ shithole. /his/ is rightful libertarian clay
> and how can we move forward form the yoke of monumental history the west has become so addicted to
Post-structuralist intellectual nihilism completely dominates Western civilisation since 1968 silencing all opposition, and yet you faggots still need to pretend like you're the rebels resisting against some imaginary authoritarian modern philosophy that hasn't existed for half a century.
Thank God this shit is finally dying.
There's been plenty so far, it just so happens that by "theory-related" discussions and "yet another conservative-oriented board" you're sounding like you want a hug box.
History is the use of logic and conclusions based on primary sources.
>Is this doomed to be yet another conservative-oriented board?
No. Historiography is dominated by marxist historiography and the reactions to it.
>American historiography and its regulatory institutions, such as the AHA, are still hung up on the collectivist aspect of history.
You've got to be fucking kidding. The AHA is a stalwart of promoting bourgeois liberalism.
>Are there any post-structuralist historians here? Where my post-marxist bros at?
Reread Thompson and Hill until you understand what's going on.
While there's stormweenies and SJWs alike on this board, that's part of its appeal. You have all schools of thought represented here so far, rather than being an echochamber of one of the other.
That said, revisionism is one of the most disappointing schools of history ever, as it's just a means to hijack actual facts for political agenda. Repurposing reality for one's own end.
Stfu and talk about history. Don't just whine about the board.
This is now a historical migrations thread. /his/torians, why do you think England became more Germanic than France or Spain, even though all of them were invaded by Germanic tribes all the same?
>revisionism is one of the most disappointing schools of history ever
Revisionism isn't a school of history, it is the process where the discipline reworks itself and its old assumptions by returning to the archive.
I hope this board can be the kind of place where the use of the terms like fucktard, libtard, libkek and whatever pejorative the left uses to insult conservatives etc. can be avoided.
However, having looked at the thread where people share 'obscure' pieces of history the general level of historical knowledge seems fairly basic, so it I doubt this place we be that riveting.
Not really, I'd rather have debate than unilateral distillation of information and the illusory 'conflicts' historians contend with to mask any trace of critical theory. History is an exercise in torturing meaning and creating a semantics of ontology. Cobban is a good example of this, as are pretty much most modern historians whose sole focus is rehabilitation.
kek EP Thompson, alright marxfag.
And I completely disagree with your assessment of the AHA when I've heard horror stories of doctoral candidates about having papers turned away because the board they submitted to felt there was too much theoretical language in papers that probed subjects like gender studies.
Honestly, we need it more than another /pol/. Ideally, a board should have every sort of opinion and perspective, especially history, but boards tend to take an assumed identity after it forms. I don't want this to be another place where people just condemn Jews and pat themselves on the back.
Especially if humanities is included in the discussion, holy shit.
Hopefully /pol/ faggotry will die down when the shiny new toy stops being so shiny.
Inevitably it will be a conservative place, but hopefully it won't be anti-intellectual like /pol/ and it will feature fair discussion of a wide range of topics where shitposts are ignored and conversation can take place about anything based in fact and not usual contrarian 4chan attitude.
Honestly though, the only thing that can save this board is people demanding sources for the shit others spout. If it gets reduced to name-calling and racism then it will all go to shit.
I agree, "obscure" seems to mean that "had I actually read Zinn I would have already realised this was really well fucking known."
Now let's talk about proto-capitalism in post King war maori economic networks with particular reference to the transnational hardwood trade and San Francisco floorboards.
Yes that was an excellent conference paper I heard.
But it's overtaken many historians to the point where editing history like autocorrect on a fucking phone is the norm. I believe in skepticism, but the way people do it within history is overboard, especially because it's often for new assumptions overtaking old facts.
>implying history, like most academic disciplines, doesn't reflect the cultural unconscious
>implying any attempt to reconcile narrative linearity with truth isn't a desperate gesture aimed at recovering the lost object of knowledge and origination
>implying history isn't just layered discussions upon layered discussions and referential/symbolic interjections
>And I completely disagree with your assessment of the AHA when I've heard horror stories of doctoral candidates about having papers turned away because the board they submitted to felt there was too much theoretical language in papers that probed subjects like gender studies.
I think your point supports my claim precisely that the AHA is a stalwart of liberal bourgeois ideology. The AHA line is that history is detheorised.
By the way, the narrative turn was a waste of fucking time for anyone who had bothered to independently learn hermeneutics.
>mentioned /pol/ twice
Jesus christ, shut the fuck up.
Since this board has been alive I think I can count posts that are crazy /pol/ loons on one hand. The amount of fucking posts bitching ABOUT /pol/ are in every damn thread, usually multiple times.
If you are that scared of /pol/ perhaps you need to find a new website.
The fact that there are several opposing opinions and factions in regards to how history is viewed isn't a valid excuse to not try and reconcile those differences.
And honestly, this kind of post is 99% of the time preceded by someone being called a libtard or some other variation.
>But it's overtaken many historians to the point where editing history like autocorrect on a fucking phone is the norm. I believe in skepticism, but the way people do it within history is overboard, especially because it's often for new assumptions overtaking old facts.
You think we should rework old themes already published? Part of the attempt to claim "great strides in disciplinary advancement" is an attempt to market rich fuckwit's PhD theses. You can particularly see this in the turn to "transnational history." The other part of this is an attempt to deny history from below in any way imaginable, despite it being the implicit logic and outcome of documenting the past.
/pol/ is a great place
people who advocating banning ideas they don't like should go jump off a bridge
if your ideas were so good why can't you convince inbred neo nazi scum they are wrong?
besides the nazi presence on /pol/ scares away the normies
you clowns get so worked up over nothing that you see anyone who's not to the right as the culmination of everything that you hate in the world, and you lash out like children and spend all day linking to far left blogs or finding obscure shit on the web to get mad about
pol shits everything up and contributes nothing
I think that no particular loyalty should be held to a single source, no matter how in-depth or immersive it is in detailing an account. That said, I don't think modern ideas, convictions, or outlooks should influence it any further than naming it- that's why we have terms like feudalism, empire, and confederation- and instead compare and contrast with other sources. You examine and judge by context, but said context should be formed mainly by the framework of primary sources.
>Ideally, a board should have every sort of opinion and perspective
Good luck, I sure hope you guys are competitive enough for that.
You can have one or the other.
If you're complaining about /pol/aks here, then perhaps you should really start trying harder in expanding your leftist propaganda even more than before, because this can only be caused by a lack of effort.
Come do the job yourself, and don't whine about /pol/ coming here and doing your job for you, then complaining about how left out you are.
If you can't really do it, then I am thankful, for the left is left behind again.
>logic is ideology
Historians surely are the greatest minds.
do we really need another stormfag shitposting fest on this site? sick and tired of hearing about muh jews muh holohoax. i´m conservative but fuck, /pol/ has been dancing to same old tired tune for years now. want to slip in conservative stuff, go right ahead, just try and talk about something else than the holocaust or Hitler for five fucking minutes
>why do you think England became more Germanic than France or Spain, even though all of them were invaded by Germanic tribes all the same?
England became more Germanic because while urban culture mostly survived in some form or another on the continent, in England organised society disintegrated and Christianity greatly declined. Pagan Germanic culture became ascendant for two centuries until Christianity "reconquered" England.
>It is also a great paper to bring up whenever anyone attacks continental obscuritanism
That amounts to hand-waving though. The fact that you can engage in funny projects with philosophy doesn't say anything at all about the merit or import of philosophy as a whole.
The reason why history, like other humanities, have become left-leaning of late, is because intellectuals have begun to organize as a caste aiming at reaching political power. The political power of intellectuals as a caste is better achieved through left-wing politics such as Marxism and progressivism. That's why /lit/ is so leftist, because leftism gives them power, not because they are so smart.
When historians were a bunch of people in love with their profession, instead of wannabe revolutionaries, they were mostly conservative people.
>you clowns get so worked up over nothing that you see anyone who's not to the left as the culmination of everything that you hate in the world, and you lash out like children and spend all day linking to far right blogs or finding obscure shit on the web to get mad about
>tumblr shits everything up and contributes nothing
A board should be shaped by those who use it not by what you fucking want it to be in some ideal sense. If more people want to talk about Nazi libriterism lizard people topics its should be that. If more people want to talk about Marxist butplug topics then it should be that.
Personally i like the sort of battle ground of ideas it is right now, but I recognize that isn't sustainable.
You know technically there is nothing preventing any idea group from taking any board over any board other than dissent and shitposting. There is no rule preventing people from being liberal and posting liberal things on /pol/ besides the wall of dissent and shitposting that follows. And quite frankly if your ideas are so fragile that they can't withstand people disagreeing with them or are driven out with shitposting then they won't stay survive on this board, or anywhere on this site for that matter and they don't deserve to.
This is some sort of parody where you're trying to make a perfect left tinted reflection of what /pol/ is yes? I hope so cause if not you are guilty of every single last idiotic thought process you accuse any average /pol/ack of.
Fucking this. i dont see 20 holocaust denial threads, election threads or nigger threads what are these winey liberals bitching about? im suprised people like this browse 4chan alot of them seem like outsiders
I have multiple proxies, do you think I am a n00b hähä? TO MODERATORS: i am not afraid to start a war with you but I know mh limits...harc times hit us but when the game gets dank someones gotta post The dank memes and create the OC
go to /pol/, you can bore everyone with your natsoc shit to your hearts content
except for the fact that you know it will get more replies here so you would rather spray shit all over a perfectly good new board
read the sticky, this place is not for you
I also find it ironic that a fucking nazi of all people is complaining about not having free speech lmao
>as if you would grant free speech to anyone if it were up to you you faggot
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing, if you try to be apolitical here, in a few months you will all discussing intersectional feminist analysis of marxist women during the Sandinista revolution, and banned if you consider this boring.
>/his/ should be libertarian
>implying that isn't reddit to the max
I'm still confused about whether we're suppose to be discussing historical events or meta level how history should even be viewed/discussed topics.
Also m8 be sure you're not confusing conservative with rude the left's adoption of PC does not mean something given in a non-PC way is right. This is an anonymous image board of course there is going to be racey and rude stuff that doesn't mean it will automatically be conservative.
>I'm still confused about whether we're suppose to be discussing historical events or meta level how history should even be viewed/discussed topics.
>implying meaningful historical discussions are even possible without the construction of metanarratives
>revisionism is one of the most disappointing schools of history
IT ISNT A SCHOOL REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. its just a term given to a reinterpretation of historical events e.g Furet's interpretation of the causes of the French Revolution is known as revisionist despite it being conservative in nature and being a rebuttal to the Marxists. 'Revisionism' differs depending on the topic/era and the historiography that it is challenging
thanks for proving the point
B-B-B-UT TUMBLR SUCKS SO I GOTTA DO THE SAME THING FROM THE OTHER SIDE
you're the other side of the same fucking coin, same bullshit, same buttblasted stupidity
Seriously what is with the tripfagging? You know it makes whatever you say inherently valued less here and/or likely to be ignored completely by at least 40% of the users.
You ain't proving anything by leaving it on other than you apparently don't know how an anonymous image board is suppose to work.
We shouldn't have an orientation, regardless of what side it's on.
I'm fucking sick of lefty weenies and tired old conservatives flavouring every conversation with their stupid shit.
I just want to talk about history in peace.
I wonder how long it'll take for off topic threads such as this to disappear
Tbh all the actual history related threads have been pretty good so far (at least from what I've seen)
Literally the only shitty threads have been these ones desu senpai
History doesn't fit neatly into any ideological paradigm. I don't care who you voted for or what kind of revolution you want; stuff that makes the people you like look bad happened.
Also applying post-structuralist methodology to fields outside literature gets you shit like the Sokal Hoax in the sciences, and Holocaust denial and Afrocentrism in history and the humanities. It's woo, pure and simple.
Indeed. I honestly think these constant bitching threads are just made by people who don't want /his/ to exist for whatever goddamn reason(pretty sure a lot of those existed a while ago), and they've decided to shit up the board.
You sound like a fucking newfag.
There was nothing conservative about 4chan until the past couple years when an influx of you kekservative morons popped in from some place, somehow thinking you were in like company because we disagree with progressives.
No; your ideology is just as fucking stupid.
What 'dichotomy with no justification'? Right vs left? There are positions attributed to each that operate on authoritarion/libertarian dichotomy impinging on violent coercion vs hands-off. It *is* a dichotomy. It's not the *ONLY* dichotomy, but that's hardly an observation.
sokal, like chomsky, renders the entire territoy of theory as non-falsifiable and thus for some reason completely invalid. not to mention that sokal's papers were unbearably simple and repetitive. his only grip was literally the use of mathemes in theoretical work because they didn't accurately reflect their disciplinary usage in other fields. if the idiocy of his complaint doesn't strike you then i'm afraid there's no hope. again, sokal's exclusive gripe is with the mathematical use of concepts in theory that rendered it obscurantists, nothing beyond that. he didn't understand theory, he didn't engage with it, he never sought to expand or contract it or even criticize any particular theory, just the use of mathemes. even sokal himself said he didn't have the interest or authority to deliberate on the entire body of the theory he was extricating the mathematical 'misuse' from. his interests were never to discredit, because he simply has no stake in critical theory or psychoanalysis or whatever. please get informed before you start spewing.
I was honestly thinking the dichotomy between Vodafone UK and changes in banana marketing in the mid 20th century. Because it is as valid as your unargued dichotomy.
Establishing the field is a deeply political act, and yours is cut from whole cloth.
>saying people are wrong with no qualifications in regard to what they're wrong about nor how they're wrong in that regard
His gripe was that there was no "theory" - that he could publish literal nonsense in post-structuralist journals if he threw in the right buzzwords, and that these journals were incapable of figuring out that they were being punked, and unwilling to refrain from publishing something they genuinely didn't understand. He's not just calling it non-falsifiable, he's calling it incoherent pseudoacademia that can be used to justify literally anything, even screeds as "meaningful" as time cube.
And he's right.
Forcing people to adhere to x arbitrary standard of conduct (don't possess y drug) ('right' position in U.S.)(authoritarian) vs hands-off non-forceful position (no consequence for possessing y drug)('left' position in U.S.)(libertarian).
Forcing people to adhere to x arbitrary standard of conduct (don't say y category of things e.g. "hate speech")('left' position in U.S.)(authoritarian) vs hands-off non-forceful position (no consequences for saying y category of things)('right' position in U.S.)(libertarian)
Maybe there's no dichotomy if you're blind and/or retarded.
Conservatives tend to be better historians than liberals, as they are less concerned with interpreting history to fit a particular, modern, narrative. The worst revisionists on university campuses today are "progressive" leftist historians. I've always felt that the study of history always lent itself toward conservatism, as it makes one question change for change's own sake.
Well, 4chan is on the right of the political spectrum, probably leaning towards Libertarianism with a bit of anti-immigration thrown in. It's obviously going to be a right-wing board.
Go to reddit if you want a liberal discussion.
Are you really gonna start this shit?
If you want an echo chamber reddit was specifically made for that.
If you think something someone said is wrong point out why it was wrong. Simple as that.
I hope that you wannabe circlejerkers from /lit/ don't make this your home.
Passive aggressive pretentious commenting without actually saying why you think someone is wrong or what you actually believe is something that /his/ could do without.
A legitimate issue with /pol/ is the meme spam.
Whining about people disagreeing with you on something with as many interpretations as history is a bitch move.
Here's the problem:
/pol/ tier arguments can be reduced to simple 1-2 line retorts.
>jet fuel cant melt steel beams
>gubermint control of economy, currency backed by gold is the way of the future
>nigs steal white women
>holocaust didnt happen cuz hitler never wrote down orders to kill jews
Then they link to websites that support their own ideology.
And 8 hour YouTube "documentaries" which nobody with a real job or is in college has time to watch.
The problem is that debunking revisionist bullshit typically takes over 1000 characters, so 4chan literally is built to encourage mindless circlejerking, where whoever has the shortest arguments win. That's how they thrive: they appeal to short-sighted, small-minded people with simple arguments their minds can easily entertain and look no further.
It's almost like a cult indoctrination.
Hopefully the mods will remove the 1000 character limit so some intelligent discussions can take place.
i didn't intend to make that an exclusive distinction, post-structuralism is simply my own leaning and it's why i made a call to see if there were similarly inclined people on this board.
you people are obsessed with contrarianism and persecution. i'm not asking for an echo chamber, i want to know if anybody's working history from a post-structural approach here and how they're doing it. the real echo chamber is present in boards like /pol/ where univocality and temper tantrums abound when any hint of dissonance appears.
Threads like these need to be pruned, mods.
Any premise that starts with "/pol/, /lit/", "conservative/liberal", "black/white" premises need to be removed.
Board culture should arise from actual historical discussions, not blatant antagonizing shitpost threads.
Thanks for proving my point, you're an arrogant little shit who believes his views are infallible the same way your "enemy" believes their views are, you are exactly the same as the people you claim to hate just in the opposite direction and you can't even see it and that's why this board is already shit, fuck off to both of you shit stirring faggots
>jet fuel cant melt steel beams
>gubermint control of economy, currency backed by gold is the way of the future
>nigs steal white women
>holocaust didnt happen cuz hitler never wrote down orders to kill jews
i hate /pol/ as much as the next guy. but nobody actually says that shit unironically. taking memes seriously just shows how new you are. Lurk before you post
Try some of the historians of ideas on the political contents of ideas. Some Hegel on how to avoid dichotomisation and actually find the dialectical relationships driving processes. And do try something other than the deeply conservative politics masking itself behind analytical philosophy. Bourdieu might be a good start.
have you really been to /pol/? do you know anybody outside of 4chan that visits /pol/? it attracts people who fall for the facetious irony. there's a reason why both stormfront and the JIDF are both represented in /pol/, and why they constantly monitor and post there.
You just admitted to me that you agree with OP, that one particular ideology is acceptable and one isn't, you're clearly not interested in full open discussions you want to limit one opposing view, keep back peddling though
Why do people have to have ideology at all? The study of primary sources and the synthesis of history ought to be a function of logical reasoning and non-selective research. The moment you begin to draw ideological or philosophical conclusions from your history you become less of a historian.
>no reason why he's wrong or a refutation of any of his points
>just a simple appeal to ridicule
And you guys really want to pretend conservatives will be the ones degrading this board?
>/pol/ tier arguments can be reduced to simple 1-2 line retorts.
Most real arguments from leftists will get real arguments in opposition.
1 line meme spam is easy to ignore.
And the limit is 2000 characters, same as here.
But of course it's easier to just say "they are all just stupid and brainwashed and won't believe the real evidence" than to actually prove a point.
Just like it's easier to meme spam.
this pretty much
Im a farleft anarchist, but Ive come to realize that communism is even more dangerous than state-regulated capitalism, if it is on the wrong hands.
Seeing the SJW scourge the world is going through, the sudden pro-immigrant status quo, Ive realized that the elite are starting to move to their end game, and thats the supposed "communism" with them on the top.
For that reason I have been fighting alot with my family (leftists/anarchists, not SJW shit tho), challenging their beliefs: even though I align with them, I want them to support communism on its basis and ideology, not simply because "its the best, everyone equal etc.etc.". Otherwise when the SJW scourge reaches my country they are gonna suddenly find themselves fighting for the elites, not against them.
I'm not interested in history except as a hobby. History as a discipline has virtually nothing to do with the philosophy I engage in - it's irrelevant. I'm neither a consequentialist, nor a pragmatist, nor even someone who takes anything containing inductive premises all that seriously.
I'm not concerned with politics *at all*. I'm pointing out there *IS* a dichotomy as a *logical* point. Insofar one counts violence and peace (authoritarian vs libertarian) as a dichotomy, virtually all of the contemporary 'left vs right' distinctions represent a real dichotomy along that spectrum. They simply DO.
Because your ideology is always present, you can't avoid it, even to be "neutral" is often just to play into the hegemonic ideology of your civilization.
Which is weird, because his sociology is deeply anti-marxist and stratificationalist, and he introduced unnecessary cultural categories to try to subsume class relations beneath a Webberian tripartite model of social stratification.
>All I'm asking is where the theory-related discussions at, and how can we move forward form the yoke of monumental history the west has become so addicted to.
wtf are you talking about?
all colleges and most political disucssion in the west IS from estructuralist and marxists and their derivatives, where the hell do you get a conservative viewpoint in the west other than places like breitbart or fox?
Lel, you sound pretentious af, and keep deflecting from what I've said, I'll just leave it at this /pol/ and the people throwing out go back to /pol/ at a whim are both shit and have in less than a day turned this board into incessant back in forth between right vs left, you're both shit deal with it
Every single Marxist philosopher after Karl Kautsky died is anti-Marxist in some way. Marxism is better understood as a intellectual culture that unifies all these different revolutionary intellectuals than as a scientific method, because let's be honest, it failed in that sense when WWI failed to provoke a worldwide proletarian revolution.
Besides, praxis theory can justify any departure from Orthodox Marxism as "in the interests of the revolution".
Well, yes, that would be nice. But unless working class praxis is grounded in the least worst accounts of the past as it was to the extent we understand the documentary record of the past such a thing would be impossible. My ideology demands my veracity, rather than encouraging lies.
just because they're popular subjects of academic dissection doesn't mean they are regulatory ideals. the fact remain that the assemblage of structural positivism is what drives the examination of these topics and also gives form to their use. binding it so conveniently to a consensus-laden, pseudo-exploratory field, like history, doesn't necessarily suggest any sort of radical reasoning or governance.
>Ideology is inescapable
This is true as well. In fact it is commendable to draw ideology from historical precedent and not wild uneducated conjectures. However, ideology is easy to compartmentalize, especially in the study of sources. People who cannot distance themselves from their ideology when engaged in study of something that should have no ideological influence, such as history, are not fit to be historians and do not deserve the title.
Using history to justify ideology is logically sound. The problem is trying to justify history with ideology, which was what I was complaining about.
yet you're still falling for the trap of objectivity. it's impossible to distance yourself sufficiently in order to have a completely innocuous, disinterested relation to the object of study. the object itself is born form the bias of the spectator or the viewer who seeks it out. historiography and the epistemology of history is essentially meno's paradox materialized.
The fact that you understand that means you can compartmentalize. If everybody here were like you then this thread would never have been created. I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just complaining.
This is nonsensical, if you take your ideologies narrative of history to be the most accurate one then your work should have your ideology in it, otherwise you're not being objective, you're just playing into the big Others concept of what objective is which is no less ideological.
Rejecting your society's ideology is as important as rejecting your own. Saying it is difficult to reject is not a license to abandon attempts to provide true information and interpretations based on actual facts, nor a license for cherrypicking as opposed to seeing the big picture.
By all means, have an ideology - but it's no excuse for distracting yourself from what actually happened based on personal bias.
if they (or whoever left-leaning, for that matter) have a complete idea for communism as a system in their minds and they can actually defend their stance in arguments, they can also defend themselves from today's self-entitled SJW-infested scourge that comes under the guise of communism.
If you generally support communism because it sounds cool without any knowledge of it, and someone approaches you and tells you he is fighting for it you will simply go ahead and join. The point is being able to see through the bullshit and the disguise, and choosing for yourself.
While I take your points on board, the point of praxis type marxisms is to abolish marxism as such in favour of the construction of the proletariat. In this sense communist science would necessarily ONLY be the revolutionary action of the proletariat.
Yes, the working class-in-itself is a lie. That's why Lukacs revived the category of the class-for-itself.
Posting Keine on /his/. Seriously. What the fuck. That bitch is a falsificationalist, that's her magic power. I mean sure, she fights against Former Class-A war criminals with her immortal proletarian comrade, but she is the definition of a substitutionalist nomenklatura intellectual and turns her coat with the moon.
We can't help being biased, but we can help the extent, nature and effect of our bias on our work.
Your standards of epistemology have been broadly rejected by historians as not being based in broad and deep textual reading; and, moreover, as being entirely incompatible with the nature of reading itself.
>but boards tend to take an assumed identity after it forms
...which is based on who frequents it. If you were actually after real historical discussion you would relish the chance to defend your ideas, but it's clear that you're really after a hugbox that will reaffirm what you already believe to be true. And since that's what you're after, you need only go to /lit/ or the other 90% of internet forums that will support your bullshit. And if you're feeling overwhelmed by all the ridicule and fallacies, then you now understand how non-marxistfags/non-criticaltheoryfags feel irl.
>they submitted to felt there was too much theoretical language in papers that probed subjects like gender studies
Translation: AHA turned away an awfully written/sourced diatribe because despite it's inveterate biases, it still maintains a glimmer of academic integrity.
>Translation: AHA turned away an awfully written/sourced diatribe because despite it's inveterate biases, it still maintains a glimmer of academic integrity.
You're discounting the very real possibility that the paper was also theoretically dreck.
>Your standards of epistemology have been broadly rejected by historians
And I reject historians as utilizing logically unjustifiable reasoning to reach conclusions that don't necessarily follow from the premises *even if* the premises were true, which there is seemingly no way to validate.
I think history as a discipline is a joke.
yeah man, that's exactly right. if only everything was as binary as the limited world you live in i too could live life with such an extremely limited, myopic and presumptuous perspective
thats such a generic question that I can reply with a wall of text easily.
However, Ill try to cut it short:
they are posing as liberals, while being nothing of the sort. Liberalism == anarcho-capitalism, while they are in fact statists and supposedly anti-capitalists.
they are posing as communists, while being nothing of the sort. They are supporting communism solely on its "marketable" characteristics (equal share of everything, equality among people), while dodging the small points, like the fact that their unemployed self-entitled whiny ass would get summarly executed if communism came to pass (google "useful idiots")
>supporting things that make no sense for what they are supposed to be
no communist/liberal wants to lose his guns. The former because thats the only way revolution is gonna happen, the latter because they want freedom and no state taking their gunz.
they are being racist period.
>Are there any post-structuralist historians here? Where my post-marxist bros at?
you should go back there
FYI: the only problem with this board is the lack of image posting and smug anime faces, the board will establish it's own unique userbase and meta shitposting isn't gonna change that.
>Liberalism == anarcho-capitalism
Not at all. Bastiat and Manchester both came after the initial surge of liberalism which was focused on the Rights of Man. Both Manchester School and "social liberalism" are children of the initial liberalism. Trying to assert that words mean particular things in history is exactly the opposite method to the historical method of determining what things meant from texts.
Why do you assume I'm a modal realist?
Who the fuck is "our"? I'm mocking you for saying stupid shit like
>Because it is as valid as your unargued dichotomy
If you don't want to be called out don't say logically bereft things.
SJWs use toxic tactics, trying more to destroy their opposition than defend their position. I have not once heard an argument coming from an SJW that defends his stance: his stance is the only truth, and even doubting it is penalized by social media attacks, toxicity, and in general an attempt to destroy the "wrong-doer", instead of educating him (and being educated in the process).
>Dividing the working class
Instead of working to connect and empower the working class as a whole (as a true communist would aspire to do), they are causing its dividing, under bullshit pretences. White/Black, cis/trance, male/female, etc. Feminists fought for the equality of male/female, black rights activists fought for the equality of white/black. SJWs are now trying to divide again, based on the amount of "privilige" somebody has.
>Ultimately fighting against the communist goal
Communism needs revolution.
Last part (probably) cont.
>yeah man, that's exactly right
Sarcastic responses are the cucк calling card. Bring a real argument or go stroke your boyclit to foucalt in /lit/ instead
Communism needs revolution. Revolution comes through the united working class, and no working class can be united with some faggots running around, telling every worker why they should bow down to others because they are "priviliged", white, cis, or any shit like that.
Every land has its people, and every people have their culture. Multicult only aids capitalism in cheaper labor and further segregation of its people.
>Lastly, supporting the establishment
Through all the above means, the SJW scourge is working to keep the working man down. Whatever your identity is, there is always a reason you should shut up and not aspire for more, because someone has it worse than you.
I could keep going for hours, Ive got a lot of hate for SJWs, even more than stormfrontin /pol/acks, since for me SJWs are also coming forth pretending to be something I actually support, so I'll stop here.
Fuck them and fuck the poison they keep injecting in an already toxic society
As I said in my posts, i'm not liberal and I have not studied it, so I could be very wrong.
Here's what I'm thinking: Liberals want as little statism as possible (hence the anarchy part), and they want the economical part of capitalism (without intervention of the state), hence the capitalist part.
As I said, I could be wrong somewhere. I'm 100% sure however that liberalism != SJWs, whether its anarcho-capitalism or not.
I assume you're aware of the failure of the attempt to determine a master signifier in structuralism and the resultant move to post-structuralism in text analyses?
History had this much earlier in the concept of "bias" and "indeterminacy" of documents. Our reading methodology is why we accept a lot more "slop" and "fluidity" than philosophers, and we make up for it by vast reading of primary sources.
Communism is the elaboration of civil war, not the suppression of ethical alterity through the sledgehammer of some sublime revolutionary subject. You're the exact reason why actual, contemporary communists read Tiqqun and Stirner instead of the dusty, moribund old Leftoid tomes.
You're missing the underlying departure, since it fundamentally has nothing whatsoever to do with methodologies or "texts". There's a similar disconnect in economics majors - I don't hold it against you or them. You think what you study is important, just as they think the same in regard to their discipline, just as I think the same in regard to mine. I'm ok at leaving it at that, although I'm still going to nit-pick from time to time.
There are more than two wings. From my perspective academic marxists, progressive historians and liberal historians are identical with conservative historians as propping up capitalism. Only the reactionaries and fascists are really different, but there are very few of them conducting credible disciplinary history.
>How about we have an intelligent discussion board where all 151 wings, including Mew-wing, can cohabit?
Cohabitation means an agreement to abide by the standards of disciplinary historiography or acceptable alternate substitutes ("communist science" as Wallerstein attempts as one example). This means excluding denialism, fallacious argumentation, and argumentation based on an unwillingness to read to cite references or literature (broadly) for opinions.
It means no infographics, no nationalist shilling, and no bullshit. Supported by rigorous board reporting.
I've seen other pseudonymous history spaces work before. Posting under "Anonymous" doesn't protect you from people who do close text analysis.
It is a pejorative. It was coined as a pejorative. It's a good one except insofar as it implies they have anything to do with "justice" - in reality they're far more fond of witch hunts and show trials.
Authoritarianism doesn't protect women.
You don't have to buy into board dogma bud.
When chanology was big doins and everyone was occupying my last raw nerve I was pretty disaffected with these people too. Now the tides have changed a little but they're still the same drone fucking kids who parrot whatever suits them and their friendsies.
Long story short, nug up or shut up. Being trout against the current isn't a great time but it'll be more interesting than the old smile and nod or hiding on a media board. The eightgag lefty board drops in to shitpost every now and again, maybe you should hit them up and join in.
>Communism is the elaboration of civil war
I agree with this 100%. However, no civil war can be started if one side is segregated and falling apart. In history, this was achieved by the "elites" themselves (see slavery), nowadays however they have figured out that, if you want the people to be segregated, you can just promote the idea, theres no need for laws/oppression.
>not the suppression of ethical alterity through the sledgehammer of some sublime revolutionary subject
That is, in fact, what the SJW scourge is promoting (suppresing and banishing anything that isn't aligned ethically with them), and I have stood against it in several of my points.
My point being, the working class doesn't need to further segregate and divide itself on bullshit pretenses, neither does it need to become one hivemind. The worker needs only to realize he is a worker and that, whatever the differences with the worker next door are, they are both on the bottom of a pyramid they should destroy.
I've seen exactly 0 /pol/ posts and scores of faggots crying that anyone with a dissenting opinion is a neo-Nazi infiltrator.
>doesn't protect you
from what? Disagreement? Refutation? Downvoting? None of that matters here, nor should it. The best part of 4chan is that you can view all the greatposts and all the shitposts and all the funposts and take to heart the ones you like. And if you don't like a post, well then "ur a faget", and that's the way it should be.
>This means excluding denialism, fallacious argumentation, and argumentation
What is and is not denialism is entirely debatable.
>Supported by rigorous board reporting
Reporting which would of course be based on entirely subjective "non-denialistic" standards. You want a subreddit.
>Is this doomed to be yet another conservative-oriented board?
It's doomed to be yet another purely political board as evidence by literally every post in this thread.
Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change? Yes or no, I have evidence to disagree with you. If I am to be banned for crimethought, then the board must have an official opinion on certain subjects, therefore it is an entirely partisan board and thus there will be inevitable partisan shitposting. Get it now faggot?
Pretty much. /pol/ runs any board that could remotely be about politics. It's why those of us with half a fucking brain knew /his/ was a retarded idea and didn't want it, because it was doomed to be /pol/'s little new project.
>OP makes thread searching for marxism on political board
>Fugging pol ruining our nice things omg
/lit/ plz kill urself
>y-you need to fuck off to the liberal part of the internet, this is for us conservatives
Why? Why is a /his/ board automatically for retarded conservatives from /pol/ to shitpost all day?
This board was such a fucking terrible idea. We could have had /l/ back. Instead we got /pol/ 2
Board is fine. Litfags are spamming worse anyways, and clearly want a liberal board. Hopefully you fucking retards neutralize each other
Oh and no doubt the first God forsaken general will be /Marx/, not /Hitler/
Cant we just have Conservative and Liberal threads in peace on /his/? I also hate the fact that most idiots associate liberals with SJWS and Reddit. Just a reminder
>All SJWS are Liberals
>But not all Liberals are SJWS
/lit/ = cucк board
/pol/ = well hung alpha board
I really fucking hate threads like these
>Hey anon! I dont like /pol/ too!
>But hey, you wanna talk about how Marxism is great and if you dont disagree with me youre from /pol/!
Like fuck off nigga, this is the exact reason nobody wants to bring any political garbage here
All of you niggas push some retarded agenda
I'm a centrist with conservative, libertarian and liberal tendencies and one of the quickest and most effective ways for me to completely lose interest in what I'm reading is for it to be overly biased in one direction or another.
SEPARATE ACTIVISM FROM HISTORICAL DISCUSSION. It has no fucking place in it.
It is kind of hard to do that when the most dominant basis of contemporary historiography, the results of the CPGB historians group and annales were both communist interventionist movements.
The point is that proletarian class warfare should drive the reasons why you conduct historical work, and historical work should drive your proletarian class warfare.
One of the examples was EP Thompson investigating how the English working class came to be, and he discovered that the Luddites were a massive movement, that the Radicals in Parliament were fucking useless and riding the "mob," and that Methodism was a right wing spontaneous proletarian movement, not a top down repressive movement.
This then influences how communists should deal with the contemporary working class right, whether they should trust parliamentary socialists, and what "spontenaity" is.
What it doesn't mean is that you go hunting for specific answers to justify your position.
>Are there any post-structuralist historians here? Where my post-marxist bros at?
In the gas chambers where they belong
Fucking scum of the early intellectuals. I wish Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were alive to pulverize you clowns.
Fuck you and your spurious interpretations of history
Nigger, did you somehow miss that OP made this thread to whine about how apparently there are too many right-wingers here?
Any board with a reasonable amount of free speech is going to tend towards the "conservative" because leftist ideas are so stupid that they require a complete lock on the narrative to be advanced. Notice how the post-soviet bloc countries are all going far right now? Marxism is nothing but the failed predictions of a dead manchild, I'd honestly put Marx in the same category as L. Ron Hubbard but at least his crazy bullshit is funny.
>Im a farleft anarchist
>Unironically uses the term "SJW"
We get it /pol/, you're desperate. Please stop shitposting here.
I can say the same honestly. After spending around a month lurking /pol/, they're nowhere near as bad as the people constantly whining about them are.
/his/ is pretty good starting out though, but ultimately it will probably be "right wing circle jerk" because the other side can't even fathom the idea of talking to people they don't agree with. And that's their fault. At least the /pol/acks will try despite their deficiencies instead of outright silencing by crying boogeyman and starting stupid threads bitching about political alignment instead of realizing history and politics are often intertwined.
>i want to know if anybody's working history from a post-structural approach here and how they're doing it.
then you should have made a thread about that without >WAAAH /pol/ GO HOME in the OP you fucking idiot
This, I keep seeing fine discussions derailed by manchildren who can't refute things that hurt their feewings so they start crying about it instead.
Just stop. If you can't deal with conflicting viewpoints, let alone refute them, fuck off this board.
I LOVE History, looking at this board is like being in a kid in a candy shop for me. I would hate for it to turn into a /pol/-tier circle jerk, but I would also hate for it to turn into a reddit type of place as well.
Personally, my politics are moderate with some leaning more on conservative or more on liberal depending on the subject (I'm more conservative regarding gender roles but a tad bit more liberal with race).
Ideally, there would be no shitposting and just full on analysis and discussion of history in best way possible. Realistically, however, this board will either take on an extreme liberal or extreme conservative approach considering people can never keep things moderate.
How is any board 'run' by anyone?
It's not even as though people have identities and therefore accrue respect and power and influence. Maybe in a few areas there's a trip-user whom people think knows what he's talking about. But that's all.
>What is /new/
>What is nigger walks and all the old /pol/ tier racism before /pol/ even existed
Lot's of newfags desu
There is probably more meta shit about the board than there are actual history threads.
The sticky even reads like a post from /q/.
At least the mods are keen enough to ban the overt and not the implied.
>If you can't see how Marx was another cog in the plot for Jewish World Domination then stick to video games
Fine, fuck it you goddamn Nazi.
>Turn on Vidyabox
Yeeaahhh much better..
I thought this was mostly for academic philosophic discussion and asking about historical stuff
Eventually, "bait threads" will be ignored, like any questions concerning time travel or other controversial scientific ideas on /sci/.
Someone posts a WW2 thread? Keep scrolling.
Someone posts a Christianity thread? Keep scrolling.
Someone posts a Civil War thread? Keep scrolling.
Why? Because acknowledging /pol/'s presence on /his/ "feeds the trolls".
And so the only topics anyone regularly posts in are boring topics because the controversy surrounding significant events in history means we can't look at the elephant in the room.
I don't expect this board to last long.
I'm convinced that things might be a whole lot better once people stop getting vaginal creases about words, and instead of trying to "own words" by formally declaring that only those they apply to are allowed to use them, they just "own" the words.