Not to mention it undermines a great deal of research in my area with little more than a brief ref to some of that foundational work.
Frustrating to read an article by someone you respect that makes pretty egregious errors that I was able to fact check in 30 seconds.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The article attempts to break the mold in a few areas which I respect and appreciate but some of the claims...idk y'all. Pretty tenuous.
Show this thread -
Tenuous is the wrong word. I agree partially with what they say but to the extent that if we combine it with the theories it rejects...
Show this thread -
...then we get a more nuanced syncretic argument that may explain a number of things that both theories ignore.
Show this thread -
I find so often in my area that people are really hard-line one way or the other, and fail to acknowledge that it may be more nuanced.
Show this thread -
This is not an applicable argument everywhere. I speak of this only in my field of conversion-era early medieval europe.
Show this thread -
Rituals and symbols are not pagan OR christian, history is not all continuity OR change. it can be many things at once.
Show this thread -
and it is as much about a broader picture as it is about a microcosm, about whole cultures or individuals in the past.
Show this thread -
History is not objective. We are a product of our biases. Instead of pretending they aren't there, we need to confront them.
Show this thread -
I direct this in particular to my fellow white western historians, since we presume we are the default in history.
Show this thread -
Let's not forget that China referred to Rome's "minor kings" in the 3rd c. CE.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.