My History Professor is Depressingly Bad at European History

[Dirk_Pitt]

To him the Kingdoms of England and France didn't come into existence until the 15th century.

And there wasn't a mercantile class until the 16th century. And of course progress is bad and having no written history is good.

I had to place my fist in my mouth to prevent myself from getting foot-in-mouth disease.


I just needed to vent.

 

[MrHaakwood]

Damn! How could someone like him become history professor

 

[asnys]

Have you considered notifying somebody in the department? Because that sounds pretty bad.

 

[Seleucus]

....can I ask what sort of university you're at?

 

[Lalli]

How anyone can be professor that kind of opinions?

 

[Axeman]

Being familiar with academic jargon I think you are simply mistaken, and quite frankly a bit too confident in yourself if you think that you just happen to know something that the entire university vetting system doesn't know.

To him the Kingdoms of England and France didn't come into existence until the 15th century.

France and England obviously existed before the 15th century, but I am willing to bet that wasn't what your professor met. I am willing to bet he was talking about France and England as conceptual nation-states which didn't arise until the 15th century. The 12th century England was far different from the 15th century England in political structure and it was evolving into a modern nation state, and the same with France.

And there wasn't a mercantile class until the 16th century.

This has a lot of backing actually. There were certainly merchants and traders before the 16th century obviously, but a mercantile CLASS which functioned in the context of a society at large didn't emerge instantly and didn't exist since the beginning of time, in fact I would go further than your professor and say that as a class the mercantile class didn't emerge in Europe until the early 17th century ( I would argue that despite great Mercantile influences in Renaissance Italy and 15th century Spain post-Columbus that wouldn't really qualify as a class, though valid cases can be made to the contrary ala Medici-esque bankers ) .

And of course progress is bad and having no written history is good.

If he does think this (which I doubt) then I agree with you. More likely is that he feels that written history isn't the end all be all of history and that other sources, be them oral traditions or a sociological examination of history, kind of like reconstructing zeitgeists, to be valid. While its certainly okay to disagree with that point of view to varying degrees its not an invalid one to have. It should be remembered that only half a century ago such a viewpoint of examination beyond institutions or "traditional" history was actively discouraged and called "lazy history" , and if your professor is old enough it could be a misconstruing of circumstances, I've seen professors give redundant lectures to history graduate students on the importance of considering economic, social, and cultural history as well as "traditional" history; ignoring that most people don't need to be convinced of that.

I had to place my fist in my mouth to prevent myself from getting foot-in-mouth disease.

Have you actually tried to talk to him and see what he means, or "call him out?" If you are too worried about him lowering your grade because he can't handle criticism try to get him to engage you by asking a question (Socratic Method) " Wait, I thought Modern England came about circa 1066 with the Norman Conquest, what are you defining Modern, or England, as? " or something along those lines. Professors who can't handle criticism and might lower grades for troublesome students usually LOVE to give out information, so this is a "safe" way to handle those professors, though they are extremely rare.

 

[scholar]

I'm going to have to agree with Axeman.

Well, strictly speaking, the Kingdoms of England and France did not emerge as cohesive structural wholes until after the 100 years war that settled the divisions between the two countries. Or, you know, the 15th century.

Titularly speaking, England and France had been around for a long time before that. Their modern form, however, had not been.

----

As for mercantile classes... patently false. China had a Merchant Class [one of their four classes], India had a merchant caste sub-sets [a byproduct of their system], and Europe had them before, though I'll let the antiquity crisis erase most of them and just comment that they were back in action in medieval times.

Mercantilism, however, is a different story.

 

[Axeman]

I'm going to have to agree with Axeman.

Well, strictly speaking, the Kingdoms of England and France did not emerge as cohesive structural wholes until after the 100 years war that settled the divisions between the two countries. Or, you know, the 15th century.

Titularly speaking, England and France had been around for a long time before that. Their modern form, however, had not been.

----

As for mercantile classes... patently false. China had a Merchant Class [one of their four classes], India had a merchant caste sub-sets [a byproduct of their system], and Europe had them before, though I'll let the antiquity crisis erase most of them and just comment that they were back in action in medieval times.

Mercantilism, however, is a different story.

Obviously China and India had merchants, even designated groups of peoples to be merchants, but they didn't function as a "class" in society.

For example in China, it was very common for a successful merchant to become a free-farmer, because merchants were seen as "parasites" (moving without producing) and the merchants themselves were often a hybrid mix between bureaucrats trained, enabled, and licensed by the local governments and desperate artisan. The "class" part of a merchant society simply didn't exist using class in the contemporary sense.

I can't speak with as much authority on India though.

The point being though that there is room for that interpretation and an actual ability to debate it OP, though it seems more like a round-about way to debate what academic variant of "class" you use.

 

[scholar]

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree. While much of the educated class viewed the profession with much disdain, it was never the less a major class within China. Often supplanting the scholar-gentry as the most important during times of warfare, and many declining houses in that gentry would marry into wealthy mercantile families in order to sure themselves up.

Taking a look at the four occupations, you can see a very clear development of a class system. Especially when such professions were normally inherited and had major cultural and political recognition and significance, even if it was not entirely rigid.

These were more than professions, less than castes. In my view, that makes them a social class, especially when the scholar-gentry often gets that distinction.

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

Being familiar with academic jargon I think you are simply mistaken, and quite frankly a bit too confident in yourself if you think that you just happen to know something that the entire university vetting system doesn't know.


France and England obviously existed before the 15th century, but I am willing to bet that wasn't what your professor met. I am willing to bet he was talking about France and England as conceptual nation-states which didn't arise until the 15th century. The 12th century England was far different from the 15th century England in political structure and it was evolving into a modern nation state, and the same with France.



This has a lot of backing actually. There were certainly merchants and traders before the 16th century obviously, but a mercantile CLASS which functioned in the context of a society at large didn't emerge instantly and didn't exist since the beginning of time, in fact I would go further than your professor and say that as a class the mercantile class didn't emerge in Europe until the early 17th century ( I would argue that despite great Mercantile influences in Renaissance Italy and 15th century Spain post-Columbus that wouldn't really qualify as a class, though valid cases can be made to the contrary ala Medici-esque bankers ) .



If he does think this (which I doubt) then I agree with you. More likely is that he feels that written history isn't the end all be all of history and that other sources, be them oral traditions or a sociological examination of history, kind of like reconstructing zeitgeists, to be valid. While its certainly okay to disagree with that point of view to varying degrees its not an invalid one to have. It should be remembered that only half a century ago such a viewpoint of examination beyond institutions or "traditional" history was actively discouraged and called "lazy history" , and if your professor is old enough it could be a misconstruing of circumstances, I've seen professors give redundant lectures to history graduate students on the importance of considering economic, social, and cultural history as well as "traditional" history; ignoring that most people don't need to be convinced of that.



Have you actually tried to talk to him and see what he means, or "call him out?" If you are too worried about him lowering your grade because he can't handle criticism try to get him to engage you by asking a question (Socratic Method) " Wait, I thought Modern England came about circa 1066 with the Norman Conquest, what are you defining Modern, or England, as? " or something along those lines. Professors who can't handle criticism and might lower grades for troublesome students usually LOVE to give out information, so this is a "safe" way to handle those professors, though they are extremely rare.

I'll be honest and say I did a poor job of explaining him in the OP. He ultimately said that before the 15th century that there were no kings or queens and that the ONLY authority in Europe was the Pope.

And on Oral History versus Written History, it was mostly the implication, his tone and some of the words he used.

He also tends to look at history from the guise of a 21st century westerner, with a 21st Century Western view of morality. And yes, from that perspective what the Europeans did to the Natives was horrible, I completely agree. But is it any worse than what people have done to their fellow man before or since? I wouldn't think so. Human beings do some pretty horrible things to one another and feeling shame for one in particular won't change the fact that it happened, and most likely will happen again, and again, and again.

Not only that but it's also the way he lectures. It seems he went to the Jeff Goldblum School for Public Speaking... Not only that but he really likes to move his hands... a lot. It's a bit distracting.

 

[Jinx999]

I'll be honest and say I did a poor job of explaining him in the OP. He ultimately said that before the 15th century that there were no kings or queens and that the ONLY authority in Europe was the Pope.

Buhh.

How on earth?

What the . . . .

Seriously, how did this guy ever come up with that position?

What's his background? Is he literate?

The big advantage of not having a written history is, of course, not leaving records, which means any later historian can project whatever beliefs he or she has on you and turn you into a mary sue society.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Legalistically speaking, especially if you were the Pope, then all temporal authority came from the Pope and he was the one who could confirm, excommunicate, promote new kings etc. Of course, the kings tended to view things differently but with Louis in England and with the whole Anjou shenanigans in Hungary you could see how it worked.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[zoomar]

After reading through this thread, my recommendation is to calm down. I have had professors who often made points by stating things in an extreme or counter-intuitive manner, hoping that this would excite students and stimulate class discussion. I have had instructors say things like "there was no American revolution in 1776" or that "the South won the Civil War", and after listening, I agreed they actually had legitimate points buried in outlandish statements. These were often the most enjoyable and thought-provoking lecturers.

I agree pretty much with Axeman. Listen thoughfully to what he says and if you still think he is either wrong or confusing you, raise your hand and ask a question or two. And don't call him out. Start with something like, "I'm not sure I understand the point your making, but...."

A lot of history is based on opinions, after all. And unfortunately professors will have opinions you dislike or disagree with that come out in their lectures. Some of them (the really bad ones) will expect you to regurgitate their opinions on exams as if they are the gospel truth. With bad instructors, it is usually wise to do this. With good ones, you may actually be graded positively for thinking for yourself and offering other scholarly interpretations.

 

[oberdada]

I once had a history teacher asking us why the Traty of Versaille was signed by a civilian and not by Hindenburg or Schlieffen, I new the answer, Schlieffen was already dead, so I kind of prevented him from making his point. But he managed to turn that into a joke: "OK, Schlieffen is excused."
Sutle criticism on teachers or professors? That ain`t me babe.
ANd my spelling is getting worse and worse, need to come here more often.

And about the power of the pope, only one Kaiser ever went to Canossa...

 

[Lascupa0788]

One of my previous High School history teachers- not that they should be held to the same standards- believed wholeheartedly that smallpox infected blankets were handed out to Native Americans and that those blankets were somehow knowingly manufactured and infected for the purpose. He also believed that Panama was a former British colony and had never been part of Columbia, that a Nicaragua canal is soundly impossible and was never discussed IRL and will never come into being, that Liberia was a good idea, and that Marijuana is as big of a divisive factour and as likely to lead to civil war as slavery was. We had an American History class, so I don't know if he was equally bad with the rest of the world- but when highlighting the continents on his wall map, he made Turkey part of Europe but Caucasia and all of Kazakhstan part of Asia. ... Another one of the history teachers at the same school had a single period of history class and was a coach for the other periods; his teaching wasn't wrong per se, but he was disgustingly pro-America pro-Capitalism and made Communism seem like a latter-day offshoot of Fascism without stating it directly. Apparently, Gorbachev and Stalin were also the only two Soviet leaders worth even knowing the names of, and never mind other Communists like Marx or Mao. In bloody 'World History' class. The way he teached, it seems like we spent a third of our time on the US, a third on Venice and the other Italian republics, a sixth on Nazi Germany, and a sixth on everything else ever.

I wish that I had been in a district that allows people to test out of classes, because I think I undid some of my knowledge having to deal with those two.

 

[edgeworthy]

One of my previous High School history teachers- not that they should be held to the same standards- believed wholeheartedly that smallpox infected blankets were handed out to Native Americans and that those blankets were somehow knowingly manufactured and infected for the purpose. He also believed that Panama was a former British colony and had never been part of Columbia, that a Nicaragua canal is soundly impossible and was never discussed IRL and will never come into being, that Liberia was a good idea, and that Marijuana is as big of a divisive factour and as likely to lead to civil war as slavery was. We had an American History class, so I don't know if he was equally bad with the rest of the world- but when highlighting the continents on his wall map, he made Turkey part of Europe but Caucasia and all of Kazakhstan part of Asia. ... Another one of the history teachers at the same school had a single period of history class and was a coach for the other periods; his teaching wasn't wrong per se, but he was disgustingly pro-America pro-Capitalism and made Communism seem like a latter-day offshoot of Fascism without stating it directly. Apparently, Gorbachev and Stalin were also the only two Soviet leaders worth even knowing the names of, and never mind other Communists like Marx or Mao. In bloody 'World History' class. The way he teached, it seems like we spent a third of our time on the US, a third on Venice and the other Italian republics, a sixth on Nazi Germany, and a sixth on everything else ever.

I wish that I had been in a district that allows people to test out of classes, because I think I undid some of my knowledge having to deal with those two.

The Smallpox Blanket thing probably is a Red-Herring (although Smallpox CAN be transmitted by contaminated Fomites), Typhus Blanket is far more likely, and plausible. And most likely due too some government bureaucrat reusing cheap medical leftovers. But that is going to be just as contentious!

 

[Admiral Matt]

One of my previous High School history teachers- not that they should be held to the same standards- believed wholeheartedly that smallpox infected blankets were handed out to Native Americans and that those blankets were somehow knowingly manufactured and infected for the purpose. He also believed that Panama was a former British colony and had never been part of Columbia, that a Nicaragua canal is soundly impossible and was never discussed IRL and will never come into being, that Liberia was a good idea, and that Marijuana is as big of a divisive factour and as likely to lead to civil war as slavery was. We had an American History class, so I don't know if he was equally bad with the rest of the world- but when highlighting the continents on his wall map, he made Turkey part of Europe but Caucasia and all of Kazakhstan part of Asia. ... Another one of the history teachers at the same school had a single period of history class and was a coach for the other periods; his teaching wasn't wrong per se, but he was disgustingly pro-America pro-Capitalism and made Communism seem like a latter-day offshoot of Fascism without stating it directly. Apparently, Gorbachev and Stalin were also the only two Soviet leaders worth even knowing the names of, and never mind other Communists like Marx or Mao. In bloody 'World History' class. The way he teached, it seems like we spent a third of our time on the US, a third on Venice and the other Italian republics, a sixth on Nazi Germany, and a sixth on everything else ever.

I wish that I had been in a district that allows people to test out of classes, because I think I undid some of my knowledge having to deal with those two.

The blanket thing is true. There are some surviving letters between British officers in the southern colonies before the revolution. Not a government policy, not manufactured for the purpose, but it did happen.

 

[cubefreak123]

Another one of the history teachers at the same school had a single period of history class and was a coach for the other periods; his teaching wasn't wrong per se, but he was disgustingly pro-America pro-Capitalism and made Communism seem like a latter-day offshoot of Fascism without stating it directly. Apparently, Gorbachev and Stalin were also the only two Soviet leaders worth even knowing the names of, and never mind other Communists like Marx or Mao. In bloody 'World History' class.

I went to what was considered one of the best public high schools in my area and got largely the same situation. It's really just the American school system setup that's the problem, not exactly your particular teacher. Advance Placement classes actually have teachers that know what they're talking about by and large though.