The Time Machine

The Historian

02:34

0

Q: How prevalent was ethnic prejudice against US Olympic athletes among European countries?

Clearly, today many parts of Europe are multi-cultural, but historically when European populations were relatively speaking more homogeneous, I wonder if there was prejudice against US Olympic athletes on the grounds that non-white athletes gave America some kind of unfair advantage. Specifically...

LаngLаngС

03:29

@TheHistorian Wow. 12 views and 3 DVs – immediately, while I suspect some to have really obviously misunderstood a quite clear question. ('Usual' improvements still needed) Not only that. From the existing comments I'd conclude: "at least when it came to sports, there was "zero, nada, zilch", no racism in Europe's 20th century'? Point out where I am wrong on this? Currently just scratching head down to the bone.

The Historian

04:37

0

Q: Did Aboriginal Australians know slingshot?

Did Aboriginal Australians know slingshot? Search on scholar.google did not find anything and Google only showed this photo of 1940, so they could get this idea from Europeans. If they knew slingshots that would explain why they did not use bows - some groups in Eurasia preferred slings to bows a...

weapons australia aboriginals

Knight admires Chappo

05:23

Did you ever try to read the constitution (of your respective country) ?

I mean read the way you read a history book not just looked for a particular article or amendment.

T.E.D.

05:51

If you're into that kind of thing, (shameless plug time here) my sister's book Colonial Entanglement has appendices that contain the full text of no less than four of the constitutions of the Osage Nation (1861, 1881, 1994, and 2006).

Its kind of fascinating what they concentrated on in the earlier ones. For instance the 1861 one was really short (only 3 articles, 25 sections total), but still found space to devote one of those articles to spelling out an uncomfortably broad amount of actions as treason, and proscribe the death penalty for it.

The Historian

10:46

0

Q: Miscarriage and stillborn rate medieval

I am looking for information on the rates of miscarriages and stillbirths around 1400-1500 in the nobility of England and Spain. I would also like to know the mortality rates in childbirth.

middle-ages

Semaphore

11:24

Taylor Swift - Change

►

This song always reminded me of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But today this seems like an appropriate anthem for the US too.

sempaiscuba

@KnightadmiresChappo The "constitution" of the UK is the whole body of common law, so it's not really the kind of thing that you sit down to read.

Unless you're a chronic insomniac, I suppose.

@LаngLаngС I was one of the down-voters in that case. The question has almost no evidence for prior research (the Olympic squads for Great Britain and France included non-white athletes in the early to mid 20th century, and their names really aren't that hard to find)

To me, it looks very much like a push question for the theory that "non-white athletes gave America some kind of unfair advantage".

LаngLаngС

11:42

@sempaiscuba On "needs improvement" I agree. But "push" is interesting. As commented, I don't think it is this really racist "it 'gave them' advantage" (or were marginalised in the games itself), but about "how much did any racists in or outside IOC-like circles in Eurolands present their views directed against such athletes". Really, the opposite. Olympic ideal marred by internal racism is only a small, and early, plot point. National teams marginalising non-whites as well.

Any athletes 'really' having such an advantage as well. But pundits putting out their racism into full view in all sorts of ways?

sempaiscuba

So, was there prejudice against non-white athletes? Almost certainly. There is plenty of evidence for racial prejudice in Europe and in the US, simply because people were non-white. (I've seen suggestions that Jack London wasn't selected for the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics in order not to upset the hosts).

In any case, lack of evidence for prior research is an explicit reason for downvoting a question.

Now, your version of the question, "how much did any racists in or outside IOC-like circles … present their views directed against such athletes" (which is absolutely not the question being asked, imo), might be an interesting question, if supported by prior research.

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba Yes. And their we have a comparison among people fom different localities and across time. The issue is vagueness and broadness. But not push. And a particularly hostile comment seems to evidence not understanding the question. Which would add a little 'unclear'? Lack of prior is anyway. But this is a pile of DV & comments, and decoding the reason from comments looked difficult.

@sempaiscuba I am unsure about the exact direction OP has. But my reading is that sports commentators or common people's expressions of such prejudices is the main focus?

Make that a "there we have" and imagine me cursing this keyboard and editing time limits in chat…

sempaiscuba

@LаngLаngС That wasn't my reading, to be honest. The phrase "official statements from prominent European institutions" is particularly problematic. What does that mean? European academic institutions? Government departments? The Ahnenerbe? Le Figaro? The News of the World?

LаngLаngС

12:02

Yeah. As said, "improvements needed". I'd also object to the phrasing 'countries had prejudice against' But my optimistic guess is that for this Q (apart from 'Ahnenerbe') things like newspapers might be a good proxy for this 'section of public opinion'?

sempaiscuba

Perhaps. But I'd expect the views expressed in the Daily Mail and the Daily Star to be very different, and I suspect that the views expressed by the corresponding titles in European nations that did not have large global empires might be very different again.

In any event, in its current form, the question also gets very close to being a 'dog-whistle' for racists. If it gets a 4th close vote, I will probably add mine as the 5th.

LаngLаngС

12:26

@sempaiscuba Am not against you voting that way. Am a bit appalled by the hostility expressed in the comments. And I fear that this question was honest and well meaning (even 'fully inline with overall political trend on SE', as those with a keen ear for those whistles will term it). And that how we treated it and tend to not improve it will remain closed.

@sempaiscuba There were lots of individual views. Sure. But I am also sure that such a question was researched before, and that then we might simply summarise such analyses here?

sempaiscuba

12:38

@LаngLаngС Perhaps, but it can be quite hard to distinguish between a well-meaning question that is poorly expressed, and lacks evidence for prior research, and a push-question or dog-whistle post. Those are the occasions where we should probably be closing the question quickly and engaging with the OP about how to improve it.

The SE format isn't great in that respect.

Chat would probably be the best place to engage with the OP, but how we explain the processes to a new user is … problematic.

@LаngLаngС If you can find the results of such studies, then that might make for a reasonable answer, although I'd suspect that the breadth of the question (effectively attitudes towards race in sport across an entire continent, over something like half-a-century!), means that you're unlikely to find anything more than a partial answer.

LаngLаngС

Those are four chat messages and four agreements from me to them. To what I do not agree is the outright hostility emerging around and below that question. It's treated as 'proven wrong and mean'? (What happened to assume good will? I do, and might be proven wrong later, but now?) And not for the first time is this pattern showing up, I might add. This apodictical commenting style is a concern.

sempaiscuba

12:58

@LаngLаngС I take your point, and that 'pattern' has not escaped my attention. But assuming good will on the part of those who posted the comments, my suspicion is that there is an element of frustration behind them. Comments like that do tend to be applied to questions that are very 'borderline' under our current guidelines.

It looks to me as if the tension between the different groups of user who want different things from History:SE that I noted in another post may be manifesting in these cases. The fact that only a small percentage of our total userbase actually gets involved in community moderation probably doesn't help.

Of course, that might just be me projecting my own views onto what is happening.

Even SE moderators do not get issued with windows into men's souls!

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba That community moderation thing is also fraught with what I assume a technical fault. I look into that box for the queues, they are almost always empty. No reviews for me, OMG ( ;) Why is that? On other sites I have to skip between sometimes a lot of reviews until I find those I have time and temper to form a firm and qualified opinion on 'what to do'.

sempaiscuba

@LаngLаngС The "why" is easy. Just look at the histories for each queue. We don't get all that many reviews in each queue in a given day. You're more likely to find close votes because it takes 3 or 5 votes to remove an item from the queue.

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba Yeah. That includes a few completely contradictory outcomes, like my recent Q, met with: "more background needed, at least plus 100%" and at the same time "tooo darn loong". On that occasion I noticed that a few users use the standard comments, like "prior research please", and some never. I wonder what those refusing to provide refs, upvoting zero research questions want it to be?

sempaiscuba

But comments asking for more information, pointing out problems in questions or answers, or asking for more information / clarification are also a form of moderation.

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba Sure. But my puzzlement is based on my sampling: whenever I look, and those times vary, it feels all gone. and when I see a Q that should appear in CV-line, I can't figure out when that is due. I see Qs where 2,3,4 votes accumulate over 2–3 hrs, yet my box stays empty.

sempaiscuba

13:11

@LаngLаngС "I wonder what those refusing to provide refs, upvoting zero research questions want it to be?" See my previous observations about multiple communities on History:SE. My guess is that those attitudes feed into the comments you feel are hostile.

@LаngLаngС At present, there is just 1 question in the close vote queue (the very question that we were discussing above, in fact)

The Professor

3

Q: Can we fix linkage on election page to meta?

It seems that the link for the questions on meta is not working. The link to Meta is noted as https://history.meta.com/tags/election but this should be https://history.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/election Can this be fixed? It's just a nitpick since I can find my way around this but it might not ...

support election

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba Maybe. But this is only one pub. Given the rules we have, it feels big enough to accommodate a lot of people.

sempaiscuba

13:29

@LаngLаngС Perhaps so. But when people are voting to leave questions open, that should very clearly be closed under those rules, I can understand the frustrations felt by the people who agree with those rules.

"Intentionally disrupting an online community" is one of the definitions of troll-like behaviour (see, for example the paper Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions ), so that frustration may be legitimate.

IMO (and as I have said many times before), the fact that we don't have a clear mechanism for determining what we mean by consensus really doesn't help.

Personally, I think there are things about our rules that could do with some improvement, but I also really don't think that ignoring those rules is the way forward.

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba And again you my 'weapons rattling'… ;)

sempaiscuba

So, yes, I get a sinking feeling when I see a relatively low-quality question, which should probably be closed, but which I suspect won't be, and which will probably also attract equally problematic answers (and the almost inevitable moderator flags that will come with them)

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba Couple that 'lack of closing' with 'lack of re-opening', 'spurious voting', 'comment-torrent' and the biggest thorn: 'subpar yet HNQ stardom'…

sempaiscuba

And assuming good intentions, I see those 'hostile' comments as the responses of other users who anticipate similar problems and outcomes. I'm guessing that the same people are also casting the down-votes and close-votes.

@LаngLаngС Yep. But one problem at a time.

Your original point was about hostile comments and quick close/down votes.

I'm just saying that I think I understand the underlying problem that explains those elements.

But I could just as easily be wrong.

And now we get this, which I expect will meet the same fate as the OP's previous low-quality questions, and which may also attract more of those 'hostile' comments.

The Historian

14:02

-2

Q: History of Wage-Labour

It seems that the literature on wage-labour is mostly subsumed into the literatute on slavery. But is there a whole book about wage-labour and its genisis and history alone? At least I coulnd't find one.

political-history social-history slavery labour-history employment

0

Q: Could a female in Victorian UK be in charge of her own money at 18 years old?

Could a female in Victorian UK be in charge of her own money at 18 years old? Could a legal guardian argue in court that since the age of majority was 21, he should be in charge of her money? I have researched this and I know that women could not own property, money etc, but works of fiction like...

19th-century law victorian inheritance

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba It still is. Compare this with the hopefully 'improved version'. Or well, the 'upgraded' one. Old version destroyed instead of improved, people still misunderstanding the question after it was improved (and kept short), some reacting with votes to outdated comments, and apparently still in the mood for further comments when the biggest original complaint was fixed? On the old I notice 2 users also active on the newer one.

And: In the exact same pattern. Granted the old has one set of problems and my own perhaps still another. But the main impression is that both users just don't want the topic seen. Then we see 'my fans', attacking to a large part directly me instead of the post. Quotes: "Your questions", "user is very biased".

The old one met a reaction that drove the user away. The newer one now gathers support for coordinated action against it. In part from people stating 'an intent to close' despite not having read it, at all.

sempaiscuba

@LаngLаngС I've already explained my problem with your version of that question, and how it reads. As for the original, the comment by Jos dealt with the "why was it named this" part, and imo, "why wasn't it changed" is inherently a problematic question.

LаngLаngС

@sempaiscuba And I remember and acknowledge it. Eg, I'd very much like to have it a little bit shorter ;) But then there is that uphill struggle against those opposed competing interests that lead to contradictory demands. Btw. "Why" is problematic – and one of the most popular keywords to search for in the popularly upvoted questions?

And was is lost on me: 'my question' is a very short oneliner. Then follows a divider line. Only those interested in the question, the topic, or challenging its very validity really need to go on. Yet detractors who otherwise like jumping to answer such short questions as in the oneliner complain about any length for the rest of it? That sounds like not wanting to eat a cake and not having it too – ie begone, bad topic.

T.E.D.

14:23

Honestly, I took that question as an attempt to goad people (particuarly myself) into talking about Hitler.

LаngLаngС

@T.E.D. Now, which Q is that? The one/two about the medal?

T.E.D.

Supposedly he made such a comment at his German Olympic games.

The one about prejudice against US Olympic Athletes.

LаngLаngС

@T.E.D. Ah. Not only he and not only then. Lewis/Schmeling boxing would be one such example were the entire press went icky. But do you think it would help to limit the scope artificially to before 1930?

T.E.D.

I just know I'm not gonna take someone's bait to talk about Hitler. Not today, Satan!

LаngLаngС

In a quick research about the geenral topic I found numerous articles that look at current press coverings of voicing such 'opinions'. Also in US media.

"Ah those X athletes… they tend to…"

And then "naturally". Biologisms in popular thinking are 'alive and 'well''.

sempaiscuba

14:31

@LаngLаngС I just re-read your question. I think (for me) the problematic part remains the "... why was it never Germanised?" element. It might have been better if you had simply asked the question in your last paragraph, citing the previous question and some of the research you found (e.g. the comment by Campe) as motivation & prior research.

But, then again, I can't always predict how our various communities will respond so … "yer pays yer money and yer takes yer chances".

T.E.D.

@Semaphore I appreciate the good wishes. Really I do. However, I'm not a pop fan, so today I'm more feeling this one:

Prophets of Rage - Unfuck The World (Official Video)

►

LаngLаngС

And btw, AH and his lineup – also those before and after – had a very ambiguous attitude towards that. Owen's sprint racing then seen as a 'chance to prove the superiority' of this and that. Before he crossed the finish line. Then it was rationalised the other way around, quickly, with a wry face. And that is an uplifting picture. But enough of that man.

@T.E.D. My feeling on that one is that Sassy Justice might do away with the expensive computer time and hire the real thing for cheap very soon?

Btw, 'get your dialysis now'!

@sempaiscuba Practicality: Honestly, how should I cite the previous Q? It's deleted and so invisible to the majority. Then it had its share of users understandig it imo not or quite wrong, wanting it simply gone. Adding it as a quote seems rather inadvisable?

sempaiscuba

@LаngLаngС If it were me, I'd go with something like: "Following up on the [now deleted] question, Why is this Prussian medal name in French language and never changed?, it occurs to me to ask ..."

People with sufficient rep can see the deleted question, everyone else should get the gist from the title.

You then add the quote from Campe, asking why there wasn't an equivalent medal with a German name, and - I think - you have a reasonable question that is in scope for History:SE.

"Did anyone in Germany ever suggest renaming the Pour le Mérite medal? If so, are there records of the arguments for and against that change?"

That should be a question that is answerable using historical methods and sources (of course, the answer may simply be "no", or "it seems not").

Whereas "why was it never Germanised?" both implies that you think it somehow should have been Germanised (even if that is not the case), and may also be inherently impossible to answer objectively in a manner that is supported by historical sources.

At least, that's my 2d worth.

Knight admires Chappo

15:17

@sempaiscuba So, what does those people know who are said to know the laws?

The Historian

20:36

-1

Q: Why there are no extant large-scale works on history in Latin from the period between Tacitus and 4th century AD?

It appears that the the Latin tradition of writing large-scale history ceased somewhere soon after the time of Tacitus (c. 55-120 AD). Later it re-emerged only around 4th century AD with works of 'Historia Augusta' and Ammianus Marcellinus. Why there are no extant large-scale histories from the p...

ancient-history ancient-rome roman-empire historiography late-antiquity

Transcript for