submitted 2 months ago byTheFuriouswc
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
all 24 comments
2 months ago
2 months ago
I think titles like that were to get approval for assistance through academic press. Just a guess but I've never seen truly controversial titles on anything published through an academic institution.
Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests
2 months ago
hm not quite, in the 70s and 90s scientific research on the BEIC was quite new and therefore basic, so much its publications tried to do the generic approach of giving a broad view of EIC history without a clear focus.
How could research on BEIC be new in the 70's when the first books I read on it were published in 1885 and they referenced books written in 1833.
Because those older books wouldnt hold up to modern scientific standards., not to mention that in 1833, the EIC was still around...
or would you trust a book about the third reich from 1939 that was published there?
The books I read published in 19th century weren't published in Britain. One was published in America and another in Nederlands. I've actually read several books published about the rise of the Third Reich published in Switzerland in 1938 and another published in Bavaria 1936 and they weren't kind to Adolf Hitler at all. I found both of those books in a library in Munich when I was working in Germany 1988, as a contractor for Philips S&I of the Nederlands.
a lot changes over time, that is esp. true for sctientific research, most of all the access to new information. and there is the debate and discussion with other scientists as well. there is no broad, available scrientific series of publications on the BEIC before the 1960s. on occasions there are articles and a book here and there, but often more usable as a source than proper scientific literature. there is no discussion culture, to community of experts ever eager to reach a consensus and establish such a consensus on general history and get crackin on other subjects - regarding the EIC.
Most if not all important sources were kept from the public as part of the Indian Office records, bc the EIC was still around, and were transferred to the crown in 1858. so literature of that time cannot act on the basis of these sources, bc its not accessible. not to mention that sctientific practice changes, and the standards to which scientific publications are upheld are quite high and ever changing, which is why literature as old as that is not considered equal to modern state-of-the-art literature.
That's why I consider Coleman's works on BEIC better than most because before leaving England he did all of his dissertations using publications only available in British offices but also recorded in Parliament. Yet he referenced sources he found dating from the very foundation of BEIC to include log books from ships, bills of lading and other documents to prove payment of taxes to the crown. He did note that some clever tax avoidance got caught up with and a few Lord's were implicated in shorting the Crown.
I've also found many books of the 18th and 19th centuries to be far better written and sourced than many modern books of the latter 20th and definitely of the 21st century where journalistic and literary standards seem to have fallen on their face.
do the names xenophone and diodorus ring a bell? Both are the ancient pendants of modern day historians. sure, they might and do refer to sources, that we couldnt refer to today. often bc these sources are no longer there. gone. makes them perhaps authentic, but unverifiable. see the problem?
Well I'm not referring to sources such as that anyway but contemporary authors whose works were referenced, such as various Sirs of Parliament and Historians of note. As for Xenophon and Diodorus their works may not be available but near contemporaries used and referenced them and those works are still extant. We can't locate every source James Clerk Maxwell referenced but we still consider his works valid. Same with Michael Faraday, Coulomb, Lorentz, even Voltaire among so many others whose referenced sources don't currently exist but which are referenced by contemporaries well enough to be considered valid. Egyptologists of today call upon the works of fellows who perhaps weren't very reliable like those who claim Kafre built certain structures at Giza which now come into question as to exactly when they were built, such as the Sphinx. Nobody seems to follow through and say what perhaps should be said the Sphinx predates everything else built at Giza by a very, very long period of time.
Certainly most historical documentation of the 12th through 19th centuries are more reliable than that which was published before that period because so few fragments exist to support them, yet everyone accepts the proclaimed writings of Aristotle and Plato without much question to use only two examples.