History is written by the victors, and then endlessly rewritten after that. At present, historians are very busy writing the history of subaltern voices - ie introducing stories from marginalised perspectives into the historical record. At the other end of this sausage factory are the consumers who are fed this information which is presented as fact - hardly ever are we presented with the raw evidence that these stories are based on.
I'm very glad that this angle on history is receiving greater attention; it is absolutely equivalent to the replication crisis in science. It seems that all academic endeavours are politicised and bent towards some ends that are predetermined - rather than a natural unfolding of ever increasing understanding.
> well, in case of the Vikings it was mostly the other way round. The monks who got plundered were the "literate class" of their time, hence in this case it was written by the "losers".
But do you realise that the research you present here is not actually evidence? It is a link to a historian's opinion. It would be like reading a quote from the guardian about how Bulstrode is presenting remarkable research.
Meta analysis such as this, based on hearsay rather than personal verification and assessment of the actual evidence, is assuredly not the way to get to the truth of the matter.
The idea of a flat earth is also a fairly intuitive claim too, as none of us experience any of the sphere earth attributes - we don't see a curve, experience the spin, etc. Intuition without evidence is really just a story.
Can’t say I agree that the earth being flat seems nearly as intuitive as monks, being the only literate faction at the time and place, were the only ones to record the written history of their time and place.
I'd say the monks and the society they represented were the winners in the middle to long term, after all the vikings that had gotten to the Loire and those whereabouts ended up speaking French and "becoming" French themselves, and not the other way round.
A notable and unfortunate exception. To give you an idea of its impact:
> First enunciated in 1866, it has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religious attitudes in the Southern United States to the present day.
> In that regard, white supremacy is a central feature of the Lost Cause narrative.
It is. But academic fields (perhaps all fields across society) are all bent towards a progressive liberal outlook. This outlook is also highly intolerant of divergent views - if they disagree with your voice, they will not fight for your right to speak anyway - you will be deplatformed. That intolerance is the most pernicious element to me.
This piece does the opposite of acknowledging that history is written by the victors. It it is an attack on the credibility of a particular perspective, striving to paint the author's opponents as fictional story tellers while the author is objective and rational.
History ought to be an evidence driven practise - the evidence (primary, secondary, tertiary) should drive the theory. It ought to be the scientific method applied to historical evidence.
As I read this post, the author is saying that Bulstrode had very little or no evidence to claim the story that was then widely circulated in many media outlets. The author is using that one example to illustrate a wider principle in play - that not many of the historical stories are based in sound reasoning. This is my assessment too.
If there is little or no evidence, where is the greater bias? Is it in the person that conjures up the story (Bulstrode) or in the author who is saying the story is not well supported?
I'm very glad that this angle on history is receiving greater attention; it is absolutely equivalent to the replication crisis in science. It seems that all academic endeavours are politicised and bent towards some ends that are predetermined - rather than a natural unfolding of ever increasing understanding.