I was going to link that here:
https://reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/8u482b/slatestarcodexs_reasonable_defense_of_the_dark/e1eq27b/
Some badhistory in the SSC post but a good example of counter-jerking too hard.
The term “Early Middle Ages” covers the same span of time as “Dark
Age” and has the advantage that it can’t be appropriated by weird
western-civilisation types to serve their idiot agenda. So Scott is
wrong to suggest that “Dark Age” is actually fine. But he’s not
egregiously wrong, just mildly wrong. He’s wrong in a way that might be,
and in fact probably is, a dogwhistle for underlying reactionary
politics, but that doesn’t mean the argument itself is intrinsically
ludicrous.
The Albion’s Seed stuff is a much more pernicious example of bad
rationalist history imo.
The badhistory post about it is here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/8q6krp/albions_seed_the_hillbilly_myth_and_slate_star/
It's not my field and I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it in detail, but the gist of it seems to be that Albion's Seed offers a bullshit simplified deterministic understanding of human culture, which appeals to Scott because he objects to the existence of any theory of history that can't be understood by some internet guy in two seconds.
To put it short, lots of people, particularly armchair scientist atheist types like to posit the period following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire up to the High Middle Ages (or the Renaissance if you're feeling sassy) as a dystopian nightmare hellscape where no technological or intellectual innovations were possible because of the oppression of Christian fanaticism and the loss of Roman innovation and rationality.
If often comes with the implication that Rome was great until either the Christians or the barbarian hordes came around and ruined everything.
This makes actual historians who study the period want to stab people.
Historians sometimes still use the term “Dark ages” in terms of
source paucity, though usually even then with quotation marks.
It’s also interesting how the view of roman excellence is so
parochial and mediterrenean-centered: Looking at northern, eastern, or
even central europe there is no crash with the fall of the
Roman Empire, at best a minor dip. (I know an economic historian who
argues that the term “Dark Ages” only really makes sense for
“greater Francia”, and not even for places like England)
I don’t know how you can read the reply by Scott in that thread and think this is a good critique…
The thread’s got at least two /r/ssc posts stanning for Alexander in there as well, including a mod.
The term “Early Middle Ages” covers the same span of time as “Dark Age” and has the advantage that it can’t be appropriated by weird western-civilisation types to serve their idiot agenda. So Scott is wrong to suggest that “Dark Age” is actually fine. But he’s not egregiously wrong, just mildly wrong. He’s wrong in a way that might be, and in fact probably is, a dogwhistle for underlying reactionary politics, but that doesn’t mean the argument itself is intrinsically ludicrous.
The Albion’s Seed stuff is a much more pernicious example of bad rationalist history imo.
What’s the political context for this dispute? Who cares about the semantics of “The Dark Ages”?
Historians sometimes still use the term “Dark ages” in terms of source paucity, though usually even then with quotation marks.
It’s also interesting how the view of roman excellence is so parochial and mediterrenean-centered: Looking at northern, eastern, or even central europe there is no crash with the fall of the Roman Empire, at best a minor dip. (I know an economic historian who argues that the term “Dark Ages” only really makes sense for “greater Francia”, and not even for places like England)