In my fields, every historian you read has made a moral judgement about the past - this is why our understanding of attitudes towards sex and women in History are so inaccurate, because the morals of the historian’s present inform their source reading in the past.https://twitter.com/SocialHistoryOx/status/1031124354757795841 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @FernRiddell
Meanwhile
@mattlodder making interesting case for alternativp1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @greg_jenner @mattlodder
We’re both pointing out historians rarely write without moral judgements on the past, I don’t think you’re right in seeing those as alternative or opposing viewpoints.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @FernRiddell @mattlodder
You said “inaccurate” because modern morality is imposed? Did i misunderstand?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @greg_jenner @mattlodder
Yes, a bit. Some historians argue that it is possible to write without moral judgements - Matt and I are both saying this is impossible to do.
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
this is the correct take.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Also, this is why I love teaching Gerald of Wales. There is no way in hell you can read any of his stuff without realizing his political/personal/situational agenda and proclivities. Also, he's such a hard-core gossip.
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.