Very good show. I have been hoping Dan would touch on this topic for a while.

Even though the multi-part stories have for me been the most enjoyable, I'm happy to see that they haven't replaced the single episode topics.

I must say that I felt very uncomfortable with what Dan was starting off the bat with, and because of that I thought he was doing a good job.

Took you long enough Dan!!! How dare you take your time to create a show of the best quality possible!!!

Sorry, but this one is not going on my list of favorite HH episodes, Dan.

On the plus side, the story of Magellan and the age of discovery and conquest is inherently fascinating, and you really captured a lot of what makes it so. I especially liked your discussions of possible alternate histories, past or future. Why didn't the Chinese circumnavigate the world first? what if the history of disease transmission between new and old worlds had gone the other way? what would happen if we found an undiscovered island civilization today? - all excellent, fascinating questions! Great stuff, and if the whole show had been framed by that theme, I would be a happy happy fan.

But I really didn't like your decision to frame your own exploration in terms of race. Just because other people, particularly 19th century Europeans and Americans, have often framed the question in terms of race is no reason why you, or we, should. After all, as I know you know, race is an inherently slippery concept, with very little scientific validity. Your question about whether white people are somehow "special" could just has easily have been asked in terms of whether people of a European cultural background are somehow special.

And finally, I don't want to be too harsh, as I am a big fan, but really, the ending of this one just fell flat.

What do you mean, the era of European colonialism was "fair" in the grand scheme of things when history is looked at it in its entirety? What does "fair" even mean in this context? "Fair" in a "might makes right" sense, maybe. But why would people looking back at history from our future look at history in its entirety with such a lens?

Ah well. At least there is a new Common Sense show out. Going to go listen to that now.

KG

I really liked a lot about the show, and will likely listen to it more than once as I have with all the history shows. The story of Magellan was the best, and the anecdotes about native cultures, and the hypothetical about how we today would react if we discovered a large population of previously unknown people.

That said, my criticism about the specialness of white people question is that I've started to hate this trick where Dan raises a super-controversial question (Are white people special? Were all children in the past PTSD cases?) and then he answers "Eh, not really."

I've noticed it more than once. He'll structure an entire episode around a super controversial question and then end by concluding there's really not much to it and the evidence supports the safe position. The voting-test question in the recent common sense is another example. He asks "Should there be a test for voters?" and concludes, "Well, probably not."

These are interesting questions (and I personally think the shows are great) but I've begun to roll my eyes at these huge controversial questions that always seem to be hyped up as if Dan is about to stray into some very murky waters... And he does, but he retreats so quickly and gives so many excuses and caveats that the air goes out of the balloon completely. By all means, raise the questions over the course of an episode but don't make such a fanfare out of it at the beginning if you're going to end up agreeing with the safer position.

Not that I don't also agree with the safer "Guns, Germs, Steel" position on this question myself, just that it was a bit of a letdown after all that hype.

Well, all points we knew would come up my friend. No worries on our part...we know people won't like some of the stuff.

Let's explain some points though, so at least my motives are understood:

Race: This race question is the biggest part of this story that will change over time. It simply is the elephant in the living room in this whole era, and we are just too close (and the results of things like colonialism and discrimination still too relevant and real) to see it the way our descendants will see it (or the way people who have no sense of race would see it). And EVERYONE has noticed this over time, which is why race has often been identified with in this story (in either a Kipling sense or a 60s-70s era Revisionist sense).

To use a less inflammatory word (such as "European") sounds more academic, but helps disguise that elephant a bit. The people on the receiving end of the Age of Discovery did not see them as "Europeans"...they saw them as a million variations of what the Apaches called them: "White Eyes". The "aliens" the people of the New World were dealing with had white skin. It was the most immediately noticeable difference between the peoples of the New and the people of the Old world (and EVERYONE made note of it). People with white skin were the beneficiaries of this era at the expense of people who did not have white skin. That isn't a racist thing to say...it is reality. It is just uncomfortable reality (and uncomfortable because of the modern-day ramifications of all this stuff. No one cares about race when we talk about the Dorian invasions of Greece or the Aryan subjugation of darker peoples in India ages ago...).

In addition the white skinned people saw their race as an important part of the story. So, if everyone actually living in the eras in question considered this important, perhaps it IS? We try to shy away from it now, because it sounds horribly out of tune with the way we approach race in our modern world. My point in taking us to the far-flung "tannish" future is to wonder whether where we are now is "progress" that will last and persist or just an interlude where we refuse to deal with the racial component because right now it is just too controversial and painful. In the future, we might someday talk of 16th century colonialism the way we speak of the incredibly displacing movement of the German tribes during the Volkerwanderung or the Sea Peoples to the Levant in the Bronze Age. Race was important in those cases too...but it causes us no pain or discomfort for historians, or for us, to deal with it.

Now, as you obviously know, my conclusion is a sort of Jared Diamon-esque one (with reservations and some disagreements). I don't think anything racial either allowed the Europeans to be on the "good" end of the age of discovery, or non-whites to be on the "bad" end of it. But that makes us, today, different from many of the others who wrote the history for this era that has determined and influenced the way this story has been presented all the way from the time the events occurred to today. THEY cared about race (the historians, either the Eurocentric ones or the anti-eurocentric ones) and that has an impact. Avoiding that side of the issue makes it hard to account for that impact. It is a very important element to understanding the story...and because of the controversy surrounding it, is often not dealt with in the main stream media.



Now, as to this point you made:

What do you mean, the era of European colonialism was "fair" in the grand scheme of things when history is looked at it in its entirety? What does "fair" even mean in this context? "Fair" in a "might makes right" sense, maybe. But why would people looking back at history from our future look at history in its entirety with such a lens?


We knew this would ruffle a few feathers. If I hadn't been running so dang long over the time limit of the show, I might have explained it more. Back when I was learning about Hegel in college, we used to try to figure out what the hell that dang German historian-Philosopher meant in his crazy books (Like "Reason in History" for example). I can't say that I ever DID get to understanding it, but the discussions I had with classmates about it have never left me. One of those ideas is the concept of historical justice. How many times have we all looked at history and wondered about all the injustices we see in it? They are everywhere and legion.

But one of the ideas (or a better word might be "interpretations") that we were discussing about Hegel dealt with this. And the idea there was that historical justice is played out over the long historical haul...and is done at the levels of nations and peoples and civilizations, not in the lives of individuals. In that sense, while there is no way to ever make up for the injustices done to individuals who lived though colonialism's injustices, their people, nation or civilization that suffered through it might one day get its chance to go through the good times in history, while its former oppressors then get their turn at the low end of the wheel.

Those Europeans who were on the exploiting end of the Age of Exploration were getting their historical day in the sun. Now another civilization will get it. They take turns over history. THAT'S where the justice and fairness (if there is any) comes in. When the colonies dominate the former colonizers, that's when historical balancing occurs. For individuals, there is no justice or fairness. History plays the justice game on a higher level and with a longer lens (if it plays it at all).

So, that's what I meant by fairness. Europe had their day...now another civilization gets its day. The wheel goes around...


Finally, and you all know this already, we are not trying to play nice with you. It is HARDCORE History, and we WANT to challenge you (hey...we want to challenge OURSELVES as well!). I don't find the history stuff on TV provocative. Do you? Provocative can also be uncomfortable. The hope is that it is not boring...or stupid. If it wasn't boring or stupid, I am okay with your reaction.

If it WAS either of those things....well...back to the 'ol drawing board I guess...

So, I just get done writing this to one poster:


Finally, and you all know this already, we are not trying to play nice with you. It is HARDCORE History, and we WANT to challenge you (hey...we want to challenge OURSELVES as well!). I don't find the history stuff on TV provocative. Do you? Provocative can also be uncomfortable. The hope is that it is not boring...or stupid. If it wasn't boring or stupid, I am okay with your reaction.


and Vive basically posts (simultaneously) that it isn't provocative enough. Vive, you have a high provocation threshold!

NO, in all seriousness...you all know that I am not a historian. I am fascinated by the sides to these issues. All the angles and elements and twists and "what ifs". But, if I happen to come down on the most normal, least controversial side in the end, I can't help it. Most of the time, that is all the info that laypeople have to work with. For example: Could I really have come out and said "Yes, the people of the past were victims of child abuse and this explains a lot in history" after the last Blitz show? I really am not qualified to do that. Ask the questions? Yes. Answer them? Uh...sometimes.
And as far as the hyping up of the idea...hmmm...shoot...I guess I didn't think of that. Just trying to give you the perspective of the side that sees it the way I was trying to convey it to you.

I will try to be more cognizant that I am doing this though...

No, of course it wasn't boring or stupid, Dan.

But I didn't feel the actual episode reflected the nuanced ideas on race and "whiteness" that you laid out in your answer to me.

And regarding the "fairness" of it all, yes, I got that you were talking about an idea of historical justice played out over eons at the levels of nations and peoples and civilizations, not in the lives of individuals. But I still don't really think that what you're talking about is really "fairness" or "justice," in terms of cultures reaping what they sow, or having done unto them what they did unto others, so much as a situation where sometimes nations are the windshield, and sometimes they're the bug, and that is somehow "fair."

I'm OK with not loving this one. I'm glad you're OK with that, too.

KG

Well, SOME versions that we did would have! We did this show a bunch of times...never getting the balance quite right (and apparently not even in the last version either, eh?). Some of the earlier versions dealt extensively with the race question (in a detailed way that would have explained my position much more clearly) while others followed the Magellan story more closely (but we thought that turned the show into another linear, narrative show and we were trying to avoid that). I did one version that went a full two hours! Eventually we just started chopping anything that we didn't see as absolutely necessary...and lots of nuanced disclaimers ended up on the cutting room floor (while they would have protected me personally from being misunderstood, they added little to the actual story).

The racial/cultural angle is one of a couple that we anchored this show on. When I was thinking about what we could bring to the table that was unusual on this subject, that approach popped into my head. I think it did because it is a rather unexplored topic if done from a dispassionate point of view (ie, not from the Kipling side OR the revisionist side). The reason such an approach was even available to us is because the entire issue is so full of minefields that most smart people (like the TV stations) don't want to touch it. Podcasters are not always so smart...



Hmmm...I think that's a good point. The bug analogy would REALLY have been a harsh one for me to use though!




Of course! We shall try to please you more with the next episode.

I think my record on the forum speaks for itself, in terms of my tolerance threshold for provocation. That said, my critique is much more a matter of style or presentation which I've begun to notice over time and not the substance. On substance, you're pretty much okay in my book.

Just, yaknow, I've noticed this habit of raising something as a big controversy you'll be taking on in the ep, and then by the end I feel like maybe it's not taken on quite so seriously and your actual position is a lot more conventional than advertised.

Just teasing Vive!




Hmmm...I see what you are saying here. I didn't think it came across that way (it is always good to see how another set of ears perceives things though). We never think we are setting up the expectation that we are going to reveal some historical bombshell or stake out some very controversial historical position. I mean...I am trying to think of past HH shows where I have done that...

I just find stuff that is interesting to me, and then try to highlight the angles and twists about it that make it that way (while trying to convey some sense of the drama and the experiences of those involved). It never occurred to me that I was sort of leaving people hanging after promising (or implying) something that we had no plans to ever deliver. I will need to think about that for a bit and try to figure out a creative solution to deal with that...

Just posted this:
http://www.dancarlin.com/blog.php?page= ... bloginsert

Not that it consists of anything new to readers of this thread of course...

I enjoyed this episode. Dan’s work is always thought provoking; well worth the wait however, I would like clarification on the following point: why has the era under discussion been termed ‘globalisation 1.0’? What about Alexander the Great’s escapades? The Hellenistic Civilisation was a direct result of this first episode of globalisation. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs?

Nah...not splitting hairs. It just depends on what size "globe" we are talking about. If your world is the Greco-Roman classical world, then yes, Alexander DID bring a version of globalization to the world of his day. Magellan's voyage, of course, was using the actual entire world...so I guess if I were to split hairs, I would call that the most far-reaching and accurate version of "globalization 1.0" (otherwise, all those Mesopotamian city-states might be credited with the first version of it! After all, once Ur and Sumer and Akkad could trade, well, it might as well have been "globalization" to them! )

Point taken Dan, thanks for the clarification.

I loved this show. Dan this was one of the best shows you have done. It was worth the wait but I hope don't wait so long again.