How do I know if I'm reading a good/up to date history book?

[Tonguez]

Something I perhaps should have clarified, when the historian referred to Jefferson as effeminate it had more to do with his general disposition, his personality, than it did with his sexual orientation. i.e. That he displayed effeminate traits like being passive, not interested in such relationships, or not bold enough to initiate one.

yeah I’ve known a couple of guys in my life who were considered effeminate, one of whom has 10 children by 3 different woman. Effeminate traits are cultural artefacts but I’ve discovered they are generally not good biological markers

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

yeah I’ve known a couple of guys in my life who were considered effeminate, one of whom has 10 children by 3 different woman. Effeminate traits are cultural artefacts but I’ve discovered they are generally not good biological markers

I think I knew that guy in college!

 

[trappedslider]

I once came across a historian in the early 20th century who argued it was unlikely Thomas Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemmings becuase he was too "effeminate." Given that Jefferson was macking on his neighbor's wife when he was a younger man, I found the idea that he was too effeminate to chase women to be a bit incredulous.

T-Jeff one of history's best rappers too effeminate?

 

[Zardnaar]

T-Jeff one of history's best rappers too effeminate?

Period custume shrugs.

Ober here general safe at local library and university library.

I remember reading a book on the Byzantine Empire didn't take long to figure out it was written by a communist or sonething as the book was inserting more modern thought into events back then.

Book wasn't useless just highly biased.

 

[MGibster]

I remember reading a book on the Byzantine Empire didn't take long to figure out it was written by a communist or sonething as the book was inserting more modern thought into events back then.

Bias is something you've got to look out for, but it can sometimes be difficult to see if you're not reading multiple sources. I remember one author writing about the execution of the Pappenheimers in Munich, Bavaria 1600. The entire family, all five of them were accused of witchcraft with all but the the youngest, a boy of 10, was sentenced to death while he was spared on account of his age. He was forced to watch the executions as they thought it'd do him some good. The parents and their two eldest children were executed in a manner so brutal it would be a violation of the board's rules to post it here. The author was trying to go into detail about how much more brutal executions were for women, but she completely ignored the executions of the male Pappenheimers. i.e. I felt she was cherry picking her source.

In graduate school, I wrote about the lynching of John Carter in Little Rock in 1927 which was the last big lynching event in the state. The paper was completely finished three weeks before I had to turn it in, but on a final review, I noticed I had not included the perspective of any African Americans, so I spent the next two weeks fixing that error. But it's something I could have easily missed. Sometimes bias is unintentional but other times it's as if the historian has an axe to grind.

 

[Zardnaar]

Bias is something you've got to look out for, but it can sometimes be difficult to see if you're not reading multiple sources. I remember one author writing about the execution of the Pappenheimers in Munich, Bavaria 1600. The entire family, all five of them were accused of witchcraft with all but the the youngest, a boy of 10, was sentenced to death while he was spared on account of his age. He was forced to watch the executions as they thought it'd do him some good. The parents and their two eldest children were executed in a manner so brutal it would be a violation of the board's rules to post it here. The author was trying to go into detail about how much more brutal executions were for women, but she completely ignored the executions of the male Pappenheimers. i.e. I felt she was cherry picking her source.

In graduate school, I wrote about the lynching of John Carter in Little Rock in 1927 which was the last big lynching event in the state. The paper was completely finished three weeks before I had to turn it in, but on a final review, I noticed I had not included the perspective of any African Americans, so I spent the next two weeks fixing that error. But it's something I could have easily missed. Sometimes bias is unintentional but other times it's as if the historian has an axe to grind.

I prefer more muddle of the road approach. Here's the facts and sources maybe in an easy to read writing style.

I don't need spin as such eg presenting sonething in the worst or best possible light.

 

[Divine2021]

Years ago, on another site, I got sneered at for expressing enthusiasm for a history book that this other person, apparently a historian specializing in the field, viewed as outdated and laughably wrong. As a layperson, I didn't know of any way to see how current the scholarship on a subject is or to see how well-regarded a history book is. And online bookseller reviews are badly compromised even just for general consumer purposes.

So, historians of ENWorld, if I want to read an approachable history book without being a historian myself, how do I know if I'm reading something up to date, or if I'm just filling my head with nonsense?

When it comes to reading history, which I do a lot of, I check for three things: 1. the date it was published (older does not automatically mean worse. Steven Runciman’s work may have been supplemented by more recent scholarship, but he’s still the best writer on Byzantium.) 2. The reputation of the author. Where does she teach? If a non professional historian, what is their back ground? What are some other books they’ve written? 3. Editorial review. Not just newspapers, but peer endorsement, reviews in scholarly journals, etc etc. One major thing I look for is if it has been nominated for any major history awards—the Lincoln Prize, the Wolfson prize, etc etc.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[MGibster]

I prefer more muddle of the road approach. Here's the facts and sources maybe in an easy to read writing style.

History isn't just a big pile of facts though, rather it's an interpretation of the past based on the available evidence. If history were just a bunch of facts it'd be easy and nothing about the past would be contentious.

 

[Clint_L]

History isn't just a big pile of facts though, rather it's an interpretation of the past based on the available evidence. If history were just a bunch of facts it'd be easy and nothing about the past would be contentious.

It’s this, but it’s also selecting which facts matter, and recognizing that a lot of humanity is vastly underrepresented in the historical record. That pile of facts often leaves out most people who couldn’t read or write, for example.

 

[MGibster]

It’s this, but it’s also selecting which facts matter, and recognizing that a lot of humanity is vastly underrepresented in the historical record. That pile of facts often leaves out most people who couldn’t read or write, for example.

Selecting the facts that matter is part and parcel of the interpretation. And, yeah, there are limits to historical inquiries because we simply don't have records from the perspectives of all people involved.