Ask Historians. It's not just for breakfast.
January 4, 2016 6:24 PM   Subscribe

Reddit's /r/askhistorians "Best of 2015" thread is something you'll learn from, maybe. Probably the most rigidly moderated subreddit regarding historical topics, /r/askhistorians has some of the smartest answers you'll find to some of the most unusual questions they answered in 2015. Check the thread for questions answered in earlier years.
posted by disclaimer (19 comments total) 64 users marked this as a favorite
 
Aw yeah! Pirate towns!
posted by Bob Regular at 6:34 PM on January 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Awesome! Thanks!
posted by stargell at 6:55 PM on January 4, 2016


The one time the strict nerdocracy of Reddit pays off.
posted by daq at 6:56 PM on January 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


It's interesting that your name is /u/JournalofFailure, because that's what I have to report. This journal of failure is both my own -- I have no smoking gun to firmly answer your question -- and that of the Soviet Union, which manufactured the TU-144. Allow me to present the evidence, and at the end, I'll give you my conclusion. There is no TL/DR, because this isn't Buzzfeed, and you're a fucking adult.
That's a hell of a way to start a comment.
posted by schmod at 7:03 PM on January 4, 2016 [21 favorites]


...and it ends up with the poster thanking the responder for a very highly detailed answer to his question. That's askhistorians for you.
posted by disclaimer at 7:20 PM on January 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Good to see the lambasting of Lost Causer Shelby Foote in the Burns thread!
posted by persona au gratin at 7:35 PM on January 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


There is no TL/DR, because this isn't Buzzfeed, and you're a fucking adult

More of this on the internet please
posted by sidereal at 4:24 AM on January 5, 2016 [11 favorites]


This is great, thanks.
posted by Miko at 7:26 AM on January 5, 2016


Wow, that Turkish involvement in the Korean War was kind of exactly what I wanted to learn today. Who knew.
posted by numaner at 9:08 AM on January 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


Since this is going to have a tone of criticism, let me say I love AskHistorians and even contribute rarely and flarelessly.

I wish there was a critical mass of something other than Great White Military Hero brand historians or questions or, hell, both. I mean, they are very, very excellent at answering the sort of old school Diplo/Military/Technology questions and always have a solid grounding in the latest scholarship instead of "history buff," Steven Ambrose/Shelby Foote bullshit. But! For every question that gets an amazing The_Alaskan or Georgy_K_Zhukov mega-comment drop-in, two or three or four dozen questions are basically note-bottles thrown into the ocean with no movement.

To be fair, a lot of even THOSE questions are also boring military history questions. Play to the room, I guess.
posted by absalom at 3:20 PM on January 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


There do seem to be many more "buff"-level people in the world concerned with military history than social history. It also probably largely reflects reddit's general userbase , which skews male; more males are interested in those topics and more often tend to conflate them with "history" in general.
posted by Miko at 12:24 PM on January 6, 2016


I joined. The third site I ever joined. I agree with Miko without the Buff male user base generalization.

I made that assumption with the second site I ever joined and was suprised at the level of knowledge. Look, what you put into the post and perhaps making better, more contemporary issues is needed but you take what you can get.

Some pretty smart folks over there.
posted by clavdivs at 9:52 AM on January 9, 2016


without the Buff male user base generalization

Sorry, what's wrong with that generalization? Reddit's userbase is demonstrably much more male, and since I work in public history I can assert that many more males than females are interested in military history. Reddit's Venn diagram of "userbase + history" is thus going to skew toward more military interests than social history. It's a true generalization, wish it weren't, but it reflects general knowledge of the audience.
posted by Miko at 7:47 AM on January 10, 2016


That's fine but could you expand on "buff" seems like a insult. Are you insulting the whole thing, that's fine but really.
Is that site purly military history or has your stats on askhistorian proved that it's a primarily male site. I'm inclined to agree with your generalization despite whatever working in public history means.(don't explain, please)

Hey, I can't get by without at least 3 generalizations but lay off the buff statements please.
I wish more social history were included...wow, just checked the FFPs, quite a few about social history. Check it out. And I remember somewhere, maybe a history class, that history is largely comprised of male wars. I wish it weren't that way but there you have it.
posted by clavdivs at 2:22 AM on January 11, 2016


could you expand on "buff" seems like a insult.

In the circles I travel in, "buff" is not an insult. It means a hobbyist (amateur) historian ( as opposed to an academic or public one) with a strong interest in a specific topical area.

history is largely comprised of male wars

I would really push back against that notion, which kind of reifies itself. History is about all of human endeavor and experience. Some people choose to focus on "male wars," but that does not make them by default the stuff of history.

has your stats on askhistorian proved that it's a primarily male site


Reddit's gender balance is easily Googled.
posted by Miko at 11:52 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've now looked up a lot of definitions of buff and can't see anywhere the word is noted as a pejorative.
posted by Miko at 11:57 AM on January 11, 2016


"I would really push back against that notion, which kind of reifies itself. History is about all of human endeavor and experience."

Jesus, I used "comprised". Human wars are some of the earliest records we have. I'll contrast that with say cave paintings but that is a pre-history thing. History is the collation of data to help support a thesis, nothing more. Of course it is about human endeavour and war is one of the earliest.
But you know this. I've read Croce, I'd bet you have too.
posted by clavdivs at 6:14 PM on January 12, 2016


I can't quite understand what point you are trying to make. The evidence for history, the data itself, are about so many more things than war. The fact that a lot of people in the past have focused on writing about war does not mean that war is actually the only or the main subject that has generated evidence that may be used in history. I think your comment about "male wars" actually confused history and data, and that you may have meant a lot of written history is about "male wars." But the abundant and rich material available for historical enterprise offers many more directions for inquiry than that.

Once again I feel like you are bringing a weird and boring game of gotcha and trying to find tiny points to bait me with, and am happy to step away from it.

Glad to know about Ask a Historian.
posted by Miko at 6:22 PM on January 12, 2016


"There do seem to be many more "buff"-level people in the world concerned with military history than social history"

It seems so.
Is that true, do they state that?
You made a sweeping generalization about a place you presumably know little about and when asked to expand, you think it's getting weird gotcha time.
I'm not doing that and I know you'd call me out and most likley "win" in such a situation.

I'm sorry to see you walk away. Did I assert that war is the only data we have? No. But it is some of the earliest.

Gosh, there is a tonne of social stuff there. Grant you, some off the questions are Google ready but I'm a bit impressed.
Miko, your contribution to this site is great, so I'll drop it, with respect.
posted by clavdivs at 6:45 PM on January 12, 2016


« Older An orangutan builds a hammock.   |   The Brand Keeping Oprah in Business Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments