walkitout: (Default)
So, today I learned about this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco

That was a shocker. It’s a really good list of reasons? Also, some stuff I don’t find compelling but, you know, kinda gross habit, bad for your finances, annoying to those around you and bad for your health. All true! Pointed out really pretty quick after its arrival!

And Bentham _immediately_ says, ha ha, that’s no reason, he’s just capricious.

https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/bentham/ipml/ipml.c02.n04.html

Fucking utilitarianism.

OK, what am I doing over here? Well, I’m _trying_ to listen to the latest Books That Kill podcast, about a Pinker’s 900 page long thing about violence. And I went straight down a rabbit hole of Well What Was Going On in England from the 1580s-1620s? Because apparently there was a big spike in violence in that time frame. Don’t go reading the decadal summaries of England in that time frame if you are already feeling beaten down; that is a _lot_. I mean, England was Protestant, and thus at war with all the Catholic states/empires/wtfery. They were backing the Dutch and taking French Protestant refugees and that was going about the way you expect. In the earliest part of this time frame, for reasons that are probably obvious, Queen Elizabeth signed a commercial treaty with the Ottoman Empire (if you are at war with all of Christendom, you gotta get stuff from somebody). Grace O’Malley meets with Queen Elizabeth. There’s a bunch of navigation and colonies and transportation is invented and a bunch of other stuff. A bunch of other stuff. (Plague. Gaol fever. A really big earthquake at Dover. Etc.).

That is enough chaos to explain a lot of excess violence.

But I am still wondering if maybe there was some extra substance abuse going on. I know the “gin craze” was later, but I also know there was some back and forth with the Netherlands going on already, so it’s hard to tell when gin arrived in London but probably it was in stages. By the time Pepys comes along, there’s strong water flavored with juniper which was probably gin. But I don’t know how long it had been there before Pepys. It _seems_ like the kind of thing that probably would have been available to the upper classes earlier.

But in this time frame you _also_ get the first from-scratch-purpose-built fancy house in the countryside that is NOT fortified. And you start to get things falling into ruin as a fancy house is built next door, that are not fortified.

I don’t doubt that over time, we’ve become less violent. I even believe that as the state becomes more specialized and develops more detailed administrative capacity, less enforcement falls at the family / kinship level, and more moves up to the king/monarch/emperor/wtf, which should generally lead to less violence because the hierarchy is clearer and people don’t have to keep proving where they are in it. I am, however, having so many questions about measurement of murder rates in the past. This feels so Reinhart and Rogoff (and I hope we all remember just how embarrassing that was for Reinhart and Rogoff).

All of this is obviously a slam on Pinker, NOT on Books That Kill. And also, I actually kinda feel like Books That Kill went a little easier on Pinker than they could have. But this is part one. Part two will probably be different.
walkitout: (Default)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-07/remnants-of-black-church-uncovered-in-colonial-williamsburg

When I saw the headline, I immediately thought, yeah, if Williamsburg wants to continue on, it really needs to do something about its racial problems. However, I comprehensively underestimated just how bad the situation really was with respect to this particular site.

The article starts strong:

“ The brick foundation of one of the nation's oldest Black churches has been unearthed at Colonial Williamsburg,”

But then:

“By 1818, the church had its first building in the former colonial capital. The 16-foot by 20-foot (5-meter by 6-meter) structure was destroyed by a tornado in 1834.

First Baptist's second structure, built in 1856, stood there for a century. But an expanding Colonial Williamsburg bought the property in 1956 and turned it into a parking lot.”

The rapidity with which Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was followed by _literally_ _replacing_ a 100 year old church with a parking lot in an outdoor historical museum cannot possibly have been an accident, and yet this aspect of the story remains entirely unmentioned, beyond this quote which is really a gem, and which captures the outrageousness more concisely than I ever could:

“First Baptist Pastor Reginald F. Davis, whose church now stands elsewhere in Williamsburg, said the uncovering of the church's first home is “a rediscovery of the humanity of a people.” “This helps to erase the historical and social amnesia that has afflicted this country for so many years," he said.”

I’m sure there’s something pat I could say here, some trite Let Us Make Sure We Learn a Lesson from This, but I’m starting to feel like maybe that Learning a Lesson thing is part of the problem. Walking around asking annoying questions and complaining feels a lot more useful and, honestly, constructive.

Basically, if you think history told you something, that is someone editing history to tell you what they thought. That’s fine. We should listen to each other and it’s important to be validating … and then also to compare what people say to reality and insist on some fidelity.

I’ve got some real issues with this quote:

“Jody Lynn Allen, a history professor at the nearby College of William & Mary, said the excavation is part of a larger reckoning on race and slavery at historic sites across the world.

“It's not that all of a sudden, magically, these primary sources are appearing,” Allen said. “They’ve been in the archives or in people’s basements or attics. But they weren’t seen as valuable."”

I mean, sure, yeah, obviously true, all of that. Equally, _couldn’t we just say, they were actively suppressed_? Why can’t we admit that? Probably, Allen would be happy to, but getting it into an news article is more challenging (<— and I mean that in every way). Truly, the people most harmed by the weaponization of history and doing the most to undo the damage are far more diplomatic than I am.

I keep going around telling people about all the paintings by women in older Baedeker’s that were removed in later editions, so young men on their Grand Tour (ETA: maybe not — probably a different class of tourist) didn’t visit them anymore, so people quit displaying them, and then they were forgotten. History as consumed in books and museums and Baedeker’s and Colonial Williamsburg is a cultural construct, a business, and functionally political. Sure, let’s celebrate that we are moving the narrative closer to an accurate reconstruction of the past. But part of accurately reconstructing the past does actually need to be about why we told these lies so relentlessly.

ETA:

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/02/951479764/where-are-the-women-uncovering-the-lost-works-of-female-renaissance-artists

That’s not actually the article I’m looking for, but it is about the same organization.

The website of the now-defunct organization: http://advancingwomenartists.org/

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/advancing-women-artists-1313612

July 2025

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1314 1516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 18th, 2025 11:05 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios