"A Dangerous Right-Wing Agenda"

[Duncan]

"What-if" historians are "reactionary and historically redundant" according to Tristram Hunt:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1187184,00.html

Seems to be partly a response to the Simon Heffer article I linked to a few days ago.

[wkwillis]

I complained about the contemptous lack of effort or rigor in the 'What If's in American History' already. Not right wing, just not paying attention. At least on this board we sometimes try for plausibility. When I think or how they somehow imagined that the Union would charge up the hill at Gettysburg...

[Prunesquallor]

I only glanced at the article which didn't strike me as especially interesting- I tend to regard Hunt as a "rent-a-quote" type. I suspect he knows very little about this subject. Having said that, he has a point with regard to Roberts and his crowd. They do incline towards the "smug right," portraying themselves as dangerous individualists while being safely embeded within the establishment.

[Grey Wolf]

"What-if" historians are "reactionary and historically redundant" according to Tristram Hunt:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1187184,00.html

Seems to be partly a response to the Simon Heffer article I linked to a few days ago.

Well, that Hunt article is complete bollox and simply shows the author's inability to look deeply into any subject. Apart from my not being any kind of right-wing apologist (so where is this bias?) its quite clear that like all people with an axe to grind he has cherry-picked his quotes to work them into his argument. I am quite sure that if one could be bothered one could find quotes extolling the virtues of alternate history, just as he has foud quotes (and rather insulting ones at that) to attack it. And his article is littered with personal opinion at every turn, eg 'The unfortunate truth' which hardly indicates any sort of attempt at unbiased over-view, and simply smacks of a pre-conceived bias for a subject he has no interest into looking deeply into

Grey Wolf

[Norman]

I agree with the Wolf on this one, the writer is cherry picking his research to support his ideas. Additionally, from what I have seen of this forum, I see no right wing bias in the AH community.

What I do see is what we could call a 'chrono-centric' perspective on the part of the writer, that merely because things have turned out a certain way, it was the best way it could turn out.

As an illegal immigrant from another timeline in which the Goths survived to become a major player on the world stage, I resent the implication that the history that led to my world view is any less real than that leading to this timeline.

[zoomar]

Wow! Based on the way people who say anything good about GW Bush, John Ashcroft, or "the religious right" on this board get viciously pounced on by the cultural leftists, either the article's writer is a fool or this is not an AH Board!

[zoomar]

Well I read the article. Humourless and unimaginative Left-wing party-line claptrap just like what you would expect from "The Guardian". I guess this guy probably couldn't watch an episode of "South Park" without seeing it in class-warfare terms.

[Landshark]

Wow! Based on the way people who say anything good about GW Bush, John Ashcroft, or "the religious right" on this board get viciously pounced on by the cultural leftists, either the article's writer is a fool or this is not an AH Board!

Perhaps we're not being cultural leftists, perhaps we're just being ironic and you missed it because you're an American?

[David Howery]

so, this guy thinks AH buffs are right wingers?! He certainly hasn't spent any time on this board then....

[zoomar]

so, this guy thinks AH buffs are right wingers?! He certainly hasn't spent any time on this board then....

"...perhaps we're just being ironic and you missed it because you're an American..."


I guess you are also an American missing the irony too.

[David Howery]

yeah, yeah, I get the joke. the point is, the guy who wrote the article really has it wrong. I've read AH that covers both sides of the spectrum... like anything else, AH politics will reflect the politics of whoever writes it, so it's not biased one way or the other...

[wkwillis]

I talked to another guy from that timeline (I think). Isn't that the one where they worship beer and never wash except when they sweatbath?

[Landshark]

I talked to another guy from that timeline (I think). Isn't that the one where they worship beer and never wash except when they sweatbath?

I think you'll find you were actually talking to a college student there.

Anyway I think this guy's just appeared on Newsnight on BBC2. I caught the last couple of minutes of it and there was one guy defending "counterfactuals" and another attacking them. Apparently by discussing AH we're undermining the general public's interest in real history or some such.

So that's us told isn't it.

[Ian the Admin]

Perhaps we're not being cultural leftists, perhaps we're just being ironic and you missed it because you're an American?

By American standards, pretty much the entire western world is "cultural leftists". For example most of the right wing in Canada wouldn't touch the US Religious Right with the ol' ten foot pole. (And outside the US, opposition to Bush foreign policy is by no means an especially "leftist" thing).

[Ian the Admin]

As far as the original point goes, the author has obviously read one or a few popular collections of alternate history by historians and public figures, and tarred the whole pursuit with them.

In that limited context he's not that off base, though - the books he mentions DO have an overwhelmingly right-wing perspective. I mean, Conrad Black and David Frum are quite right wing, and aren't historians at all.

[DominusNovus]

Anyway I think this guy's just appeared on Newsnight on BBC2. I caught the last couple of minutes of it and there was one guy defending "counterfactuals" and another attacking them. Apparently by discussing AH we're undermining the general public's interest in real history or some such.
They talk about alternate history on TV in Britain? Wow.

[Landshark]

By American standards, pretty much the entire western world is "cultural leftists". For example most of the right wing in Canada wouldn't touch the US Religious Right with the ol' ten foot pole. (And outside the US, opposition to Bush foreign policy is by no means an especially "leftist" thing).

I've had the reality of the first sentence brought home to me in the last day or so. I made the mistake of participating in a disscussion about weather or not more Frenchmen had died fighting for Hitler on the Russian Front than had died fighting the Nazis. One American was saying that if the French had been "real men" they never would have surrendered and that if the US was invaded every man, woman and child fight the enemy to the death with the same level of fanaticism as we've seen in Iraq. I jumped in to say that it was entirely reasonable for the French to surrender in 1940 as they had no idea just how bad the Nazis would be only to be told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong and was left with the feeling that as a non service person certain people thought that not only was I talking rubbish I shouldn't really be participating in such topics in the first place.

Well it did remind me why I stopped going to political forums. Too many loudmouth jackasses who think volume is a substitute for a reasoned arguement.

[Landshark]

They talk about alternate history on TV in Britain? Wow.

We also have a radio programme about it and the occasional TV documentary.

[Leo Caesius]

I jumped in to say that it was entirely reasonable for the French to surrender in 1940 as they had no idea just how bad the Nazis would be only to be told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong and was left with the feeling that as a non service person certain people thought that not only was I talking rubbish I shouldn't really be participating in such topics in the first place.

Well it did remind me why I stopped going to political forums. Too many loudmouth jackasses who think volume is a substitute for a reasoned arguement.
Landshark - you should check out this oldie but goodie from The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html), America's Finest News Source. It was published before the invasion of Iraq. I think you'll find the article rather relevant to what you've just told us.

[Leo Caesius]

By American standards, pretty much the entire western world is "cultural leftists". For example most of the right wing in Canada wouldn't touch the US Religious Right with the ol' ten foot pole. (And outside the US, opposition to Bush foreign policy is by no means an especially "leftist" thing).
Really? I thought that Stockwell Day could give any American conservative politician a run for his money. Then again, his campaign was a miserable failure...
And, of course, among her many outstanding citizens, Canada boasts my favorite half-Japanese fascist, Adam Yoshida (http://www.adamyoshida.com). Either his weblog is satire, in which case he's the funniest person to come out out of Canada since Mike Myers, or he's honest about the things he says, in which case he is the most unintentionally funniest person to come out of Canada since William Shatner.

[Landshark]

Landshark - you should check out this oldie but goodie from The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html), America's Finest News Source. It was published before the invasion of Iraq. I think you'll find the article rather relevant to what you've just told us.

Nah, too well reasoned, polite and nowhere near enough SHOUTING.

[Ian the Admin]

Really? I thought that Stockwell Day could give any American conservative politician a run for his money.


Day (and most of the Reform Party) are pretty far to the right by Canadian standards, but they're not Religious Right in the US sense. In religious matters (and for that matter most matters) they'd be noticably moderate members of the Republican party if you translated them to the US. They have to be very careful not to get associated with US-style evangelical politics. Canada doesn't have an equivalent of Bob Jones university that I know of, for example, but any politician who visited such a place would instantly kiss their career goodbye. In the US you can do it and become president on a "compassionate conservative" platform. And though I've forgotten the details, there was a national scandal several years ago when a Reform MP made some sort of anti-immigrant or similar comment of the sort that Jesse Helms and Pat Buchanan and similar US politicians let slip fairly regularly.


And, of course, among her many outstanding citizens, Canada boasts my favorite half-Japanese fascist, Adam Yoshida (http://www.adamyoshida.com). Either his weblog is satire, in which case he's the funniest person to come out out of Canada since Mike Myers, or he's honest about the things he says, in which case he is the most unintentionally funniest person to come out of Canada since William Shatner.

Yoshida is completely for real, unfortunately.

[Adam Parsons]

I noticed that the author seems to be of the belief that history is controlled by, as Blackadder put it, "social-economic...things". This makes him biased in his arguement from the get-go. Of course, whether this is the case isn't really provable one way or another, like a lot of philosophy.

I do, however, resent the implication that I am a conservative naysayer. My ACTUAL political policy is simply: "Whatever works." While occasionally similar, it is not the same as conservatism. So there.

[Grey Wolf]

Anyway I think this guy's just appeared on Newsnight on BBC2. I caught the last couple of minutes of it and there was one guy defending "counterfactuals" and another attacking them. Apparently by discussing AH we're undermining the general public's interest in real history or some such.

So that's us told isn't it.

Geez, the public's perception of history consists of Simon Scharmer and David Starkey with a bit of Tony Robinson thrown in for light entertainment (though IMHO it often touches on things deeper than the popular history programmes do, you just have to know how to recognise them)

Of course, in making my assertion what am I saying ? That popular history is a bad thing ? Well, compared to no history in the popular mind, clearly not. Only that 'the public's interest in real history' can hardly be 'under-mined' by counter-factuals

On a similar note, I found the BBC2 programme on those battles where it put teams of people in positions of command to be quite fascinating. As well as the general history, I really most enjoyed seeing the complete balls-up people made ! I remember one battle where this guy took charge with the sole purpose to seize and defend a hill... As one of the commentators said 'Its not a magic hill' !

I also found the complete inability of some teams to work as a team more illuminating than the real history of these battles. It showed just how and why some OTL battles go so badly wrong - one example brough Spion Kop to mind especially. Usually these failed teams consisted of the lower-level commanders losing all meaningful contact with the top brass - either the generals were ignoring them completely, or they were issuing orders based on hopes and not realities. I recall one woman saying pointedly you're ordering me to attack with troops who have already been killed - reminded me of Hitler in 1945 !

Grey Wolf

[David Howery]

uh, don't you have to have an interest in regular history to be interested in AH? Otherwise, how would you even comprehend it? If you don't know how the ACW, WW1, and WW2 went, how could you ever appreciate what's happening in HT's How Few Remain/Great War/American Empire/Settling Accounts books, for example....

[Thyme]

I think that the author's opinion of the people populating this site would be that they are dangerous reactionaries who should be suppressed. I would consider most of the people here slightly left of center (with some issues where we tend to be fairly un-liberal). He seems to be someone who whould consider buying icecream as a matter of class struggle.

Is any one else bothered that he seems to consider the concept of free will to be an insidious threat.

[jgack]

David, you should ask HT that. :) From everything I've seen about the rest of the Western world anything right of the Green Party is considered reactionary to them, and by the time you get to the Republican Party you are on the border of Facism. It seems kind of horrifying to me that they can think that way, especially since those places have actually experienced Facism in reality, although only the older generations (those in their 70s and older) were around back then. Still, this is coming from countries that have experienced ONLY extremes in their search for Republicanism so I can rest assured, as can most Americans, that America is as close to a moderate country as can still be found on the planet. As for this crazy guy who thinks we are all plotting to undermine American's knowledge of history perhaps he should take a moment to look at some of the liberal "alternate history" like that Aurthur movie coming out soon with the warrior Gwenevier (spelling?) or the stiring tribute to all the warrior women from ancient Greece that we all so fondly remember as Xena. (Yes, I know there were tribes in the ancient world where women fought, but not like that nonsensically raving feminist wetdream.) :) Not to offend anyone, but that show is pure feminist propoganda and if anyone is going to acuse conservatives of undermining the truth about history someone needs to mention things like this. So my apologies to anyone who may have found this offensive, but a man can take only so much. :)

[MerryPrankster]

I don't particularly mind having Guienevere as an archer; everybody needs a hobby. Having her run around half-naked painted blue though just makes her look ugly, and Keira Knightley is anything BUT ugly.

The scene in the preview where Guinevere nails a Saxon (I think) and the camera follows the arrow straight into the guy's head is pretty cool.

On the matter of Xena, I've heard some lesbian jokes that involve the show. Why is that? I haven't seen much of Xena, but I was under the impression she was heterosexual (weren't there male "love interest" characters now and then?).

[edvader]

Matt you are so right about my honey Xena. She is straight. She's had men lovers. The history is AH through everyone's eyes. She can and did meet anyone in different eras-Caesar in one, Helen(THAT ONE) in another. BTW Mel Gibson is planning a movie on Boudicia. Could this be an AH? Only ONE woman for the title. :cool: :)

[Kit]

Ahemm...there's actually is a lesbian sub-text to Xena. The shows creators obviously tried (successfully and very subtly) to appeal to two different audiences - while keeping the heterosexual male one completely unaware of the occasional in-jokes, side references, double entendres etc that those in-the-know picked up on.