Are historians more likely to be conservative?

Are historians more likely to be conservative?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Slave_Power_in_America
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

depends on country

Historians realize that our world is in a constant change, whetever its religious, demographic or political, and that the individual can do little to nothing to stop it. Instead of fighting it one should embrace changes to help humanity advance further without boundries

Such a thing as "conservative" isnt actual political term outside of America.
The best type of government is Authocratic Estate Democracy. If you disagree, you are most likely Gay Anarchist Jew.

Wrong

It depends on the country, the gramscism is really strong on my, yet somehow a lot of historians get out of there right wing´ish

historians know an empire can fall in a matter of days, and things can turn into shit pretty quickly

as they value the past as well I can see why they want to keep that way

t. american Jew

If you study history you are less likely to believe in myths about never ending progress towards a perfect future etc etc which rules out marxism and much of modern liberalism (progressive tendancy)

So while it doesn't make you conservative per se, it does probably make you less likely to be a lefty. Also the enjoyment of reading about your own culture and past glories etc, does have a slightly fascistic element to it. I always find it curious how many liberals are obsessed with the classical period, when it was the antithesis of their values.

Historians are likely to be academics and therefore left wing

If by conservative you mean socially and in a personal way and not in the contemporary identity politics sense such as being jingoistic, pro "business", and church or "religious". then sure. Otherwise historians are likely to be adverse to all these things from their knowledge on them and how they've operated in the past.

Because historians are a bunch of reactionaries.

>fascism is marxist
wew lad

But what if the changes are negative ones? Even if a single person can't do much, that's no reason for the historian to embrace them.

u wot mate?

They probably don't care about sexducation or gay marriage either or are probably less affected by the growth of libertinism also.

>doesn't realize nearly all mainstream historians in academia are "lefty"

No, people without detailed knowledge of history (almost everyone) in our times just tend to be conform to the zeitgeist more which makes them less conservative. But really historians aren't inclined to be more right-wing

Not really, I mean obviously you had Marxist historians, but I would not describe whats come since as "lefty", at least not in an organised sense. Certainly not what I get from Carlo Ginzburg etc

In (((England))) and (((America))), no. In the rest of the world, yes.

Off by one and also fuck you for shitting up Veeky Forums with your garbage.

The trend seems to more often be nuanced centrism, usually with some leftward leaning, due to the nature of academic funding and pedagogy

>he doesn't know that Victorian England consistently and reliably fucked with history to make themselves seem better
>he doesn't know that Americans understanding of history is entirely related to the state in which they grew up, world history be damned

Also, your (((global multi-millennia ethnoconspiracy))) is thoroughly debunked by even "conservative" historians.

Is it so hard to believe that modern historical understanding is due entirely to making the process of compiling a historical narrative as scientific as possible?

Yes they'd be more conservative if nationalists were funding academia instead and be more like the academics coming out of China and India.

I think a lot of the modern left is quite iconoclastic and anti-history, you get opposition to history being taught at schools and a desire to change the curriculum to focus on ooga boogas. Accordingly I don't think theres much place for historians there

At least in my country historians are mostly lefties, if only because of the right wing supporting STEM memes that mock the discipline of history. Some old historians are conservative, but that's only because in the past it was harder for poor folks to get universitary studies.

>he doesn't know that Americans understanding of history is entirely related to the state in which they grew up, world history be damned
That's part of my point. When I see an American historian apply American ethnic and social terms (black vs white, thinking aristocracy = rich people, etc) to world history, it makes me cringe.

That's true, but I'm chiefly concerned with "pop history" and the damage it's doing to our barebones culture.

This is also a big problem, the obsession amongst rightists in doing non-humanities is a crisis in my view. Hands over cultural control

There is no political consensus amongst historians. However, whig history suggest a progression towards maximum egalitarianism, similar to Marxist history. There are many faults with this as proven with history itself such as the suppression of the civil rights of blacks with Jim Crow AFTER the abolition of slavery. Slavery itself led to a more equitable power balance amongst whites as it became easier for more whites to become slaveholders overtime as to gain the social status associated with owning slaves. Abolition pretty much reversed that and the loss of slaves left many Southern white poor as dirt and many were also disenfranchised in at least some ways under Jim Crow. That's just among many examples of whig history being wrong. You should also look into historians' fallacy, the idea that historians look back at history the same way as those they're analyzing in what would have been their contemporary times. Charles Beard and other revisionists of the 20th century revised history from its traditional understanding, even from the time just after the civil war there developed the lost cause version of history, the antithesis would have been the slave power version as told by Vice President Henry Wilson in the 1870s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Slave_Power_in_America
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy

The focus on historical personalities and their exploits is like the celeb obsession of academia. Anthropology and prehistory is of greater interest now and for future advancement and ties in well with science.

There's plenty of historians willing and eager to drop their pants and teach/write about ooga boogas or whatever thing the leftists like.

Non-marxist historians in the anglosphere tend towards a kind of nuanced centrism, like said. Historians realize that the past is complicated and multifacted, and they aren't satisfied with simple or easy answers.

Of course, nuance means there's always more stuff to argue about, which means more papers to publish, so idk.

(((mainstream historians)))

The main problem is that this ideas are being transported to other nations, specially amongst the young and the uncultured, thanks to american media taking over the world pop culture.

it is

Yeah but I'm talking about the American academia, where educated and trained people unironically parrot this horseshit.

amazed that you have the gall to post this on a history board

Not him but he's right in a sense, in that fascism has strictly Marxist roots. Mussolini himself started out as a Marxist. And I say "in a sense" because fascists were literally Marxists who became disillusioned with Marxism.

They are fundamentally opposed, more than any other ideology. The fact that members of the regime in Italy flirted with ideologies beforehand doesn't change this.

Marxism believes social hierarchy is oppressive and needs to be removed to create a paradise where humans, who are fundamentally equal, can exist in a stateless society. Like liberalism, Marxism is an economist ideology that is totally materialistic and believes that the distribution of resources and power is the source of all conflict. Therefore levelling society will end all war / violence etc.

Fascism is in many ways the worship of hierarchy as natural / divine. It is based on ideas of total inequality - not just inequality of wealth like in capitalism, but of all spheres. It is pre-modern in this sense, and in extreme forms drifts into aristocratic ideas. It is also (though often anti-christian) deeply religious, and does not believe peoples needs are purely economic. In fascism conflict is a natural part of the human condition, and should even be encouraged in a controlled manner.

They're beyond opposites; they rest on a totally different understanding of the physical world and of human nature.

Sadly yes, but in time when the low level noise tier ones are forgotten, I think the best historians of our generation have been deeply sceptical of all ideologies, including the left. (and this basically makes you a conservative)

>The fact that members of the regime in Italy flirted with ideologies beforehand doesn't change this.
They didn't flirt with it, they were full blown members of Marxist parties. Including Mussolini himself.
Once again, a Marxist becomes a fascist upon realizing that Marxist socialism is horseshit. You can even see the same pattern in Germany or Spain or even England.

That depends on how you define 'conservative', because in my country many of the "conservatives" are going fucking crazy.

If I'd wager a guess, the conservative historians are more likely to be conservative in a way that the common man might find too elitist, while the liberal historians might be more 'old school left' instead of the the tumblr crowd nor mainstream democrat. But overall I'd say Historians are likely to not be on the same wavelength as regular joes as far as political theory goes and may be a bit 'detached', if you know what I mean.

Or maybe I'm just projecting here.

Goebbels jerked off to Bolshevism and called Stalinist his brethren in idelogy.

They changed it much later

If it wasn't for Hitler, Nazism would probably be seen as another variant of Communism because of the SA and Strasser brothers. Maybe with Germany becoming a soviet ally.

Brings up an interesting point, if the communists in Spain and Germany (Either the Strasserists or Marxists) had won, the world would have had a western and eastern divide between communism, or maybe referred to as the communisms, plural. Also, with Nazis not considered fascists in this timeline, fascism wouldn't be associated with racism and anti-semitism today. Heck, the catholic rexists and Phalangists and such might not have been considered fascists either since the Axis alliance wouldn't have been a thing like we know it and thus no reason to group the far right groups with the 'third-way' fascist groups.

There isn't even a relatively centrist organised group at my university, let alone a right wing group. Professors mostly keep their politics in check, but the student union is everywhere. People look at you in shock and disbelief if you even dare uttering moderately right wing opinions. And right wing by my country's standards is like, Bernie Sanders level in the US.

The right wing poor people send their kids to trade schools, the right wing rich people send their kids to study elsewhere than public universities. So I keep my mouth shut and avoid any political discussions.

When I got in history, I was right wing leaned. Mainly because I loved reading history/myths of my nation. Later you read other nation myths/history as well other nations point of view in historical events - and you see nothing is black and white.

Other than that. You see that nations and national languages are fairly new historical things, a lot of times quite unnaturalen. Many empires fall because of inside struggles between different strata of population or uprisings which ruling strata tried to hold down.

back to /pol/ or stormfront