Here’s the part that really got Sweet into hot water. This is becoming the norm, especially for social history, not the exception. The book devotes much space to debunking “whiteness” and ambles through the history of the Middle Ages making often factually dubious evaluations and value judgments of people and events from over a millennium ago. If we don’t read the past through the prism of contemporary social justice issues - race, gender, sexuality, nationalism, capitalism - are we doing history that matters? This new history often ignores the values and mores of people in their own times, as well as change over time, neutralizing the expertise that separates historians from those in other disciplines.įor an example of this, I’d point to the recent book The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe, written by two history professors. This trend toward presentism is not confined to historians of the recent past the entire discipline is lurching in this direction, including a shrinking minority working in premodern fields. Sweet laid out the problem, which he said is transforming the profession of historian: The American Historical Association president argued that academic historians should focus simply on bringing to life the world of people in the past as it was and as they saw it, instead of framing every historical person or event through a modern “social justice” lens. The whole episode demonstrates how American and other Western institutions have been wholly radicalized in a short amount of time, squandering their reputations and authority. Shortly thereafter, Sweet was mobbed by those who clearly didn’t like his perspective, then issued what looked like a forced confession for his crime.
Sweet’s column in the American Historical Association magazine, “Perspectives on History,” argued that “doing history with integrity requires us to interpret elements of the past not through the optics of the present but within the worlds of our historical actors.” Sweet, published an essay last week arguing that scholars should bar “presentism” from history. The president of the American Historical Association, James H. Praising the sophistication of the show's content, Moon said "it doesn't feel dumbed down for the benefit of the lay-listener" and said the show positions the listener "as a fly on the wall for a bunch of legal nerds speaking as they would if they were hanging out at a bar." Moon also noted the show's "consistently sardonic, ballbusting approach that keeps things entertaining without losing the listener in the weeds." Moon recommended Episode 11 as a starting point for new listeners, highlighting its discussion of the litigation surrounding Verrückt, a water slide at Schlitterbahn Kansas City that was considered the world's tallest and which was closed following a decapitation death.Arguing for keeping “presentism” out of history seems like a straightforward argument from an acknowledged history scholar, right? On September 30, 2018, Star announced on Twitter that Mic Dicta had ended.Īt XFDR, Carter Moon named Mic Dicta the publication's "Podcast of the Week". Mic Dicta hosts have also been published at Deadspin and The Outline. Vice publishes a column on the American legal system written by the podcast's contributors. Dubbing itself "America's Best-Named Legal Podcast", the show's title is a pun on "Mike Ditka", "mic", and "dicta".
Hosted by attorney Charles Star and sometimes co-hosted by an anonymous person using the nickname "The Hell Dude", the show featured a rotating panel of attorney contributors who were mostly credited under pseudonyms. Mic Dicta is an American podcast on law and current events.
0 kommentar(er)
