Recent comments in /f/history

The-Esquire t1_jb69d0l wrote

I guess. I am reading an article now that seems to confirm some of what I said:

"Unfortunately, dress history has traditionally concerned itself more with fashionable elites and the middle classes than with the working classes. Although there are some notable exceptions, this is particularly true of studies that address historical periods prior to the twentieth century"

2

ashtobro t1_jb638wp wrote

Oh, Canada. How you never cease to fetishize colonialism. Gotta love how they go straight from calling Ogden a "lad" that "pushed and shoved" to mentioning the murder accusations. The article also calls his wife "not an easy catch" as it proceeds to talk about the price of buying her, then assures the reader how she voluntarily went along with what her husband/owner wanted.

Calling him one of the most important personalities in the fur trade may have some truth to it, but maybe give bastards like these the infamy they deserve instead of romanticizing colonialism. As a Métis, articles like these really feel like colonialist apologia/propaganda. And that's not even mentioning some of the comments...

1

Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jb61xqa wrote

The Mughals are from a long Turco-Persian tradition, though, which matters more than our modern concept of their 'race'. Persian was interrupted as a lingua franca in the Persian region by Arabic, but a new form of Persian, assisted by co-opting Arabic vocabulary and script, became popular because it was used in centres of culture and power, which were focused around rulers. This spread as the various Turco-Persian empires spread, with Persian often having centre stage as the courtly language, but also becoming endorsed as an 'official' language, and even when it was not, it became more popular for songs, poetry, and literature, and was often the first choice as a lingua franca at the borders of the empire.

3

SnooConfections6085 t1_jb5njja wrote

They didn't mention at all how much downstream admixture there is.

It seems like this article is implying that the one of the 3 main genetic components of Europeans (WHG, ESH, EEF) should actually be split in 2; that the Western Hunter Gatherers is comprised of 2 distinctly different groups circa 14000 bc.

EEF's didn't move in for 8000 years (at least), ESH's were 11000 years away. Did these two groups mix or did they remain genetically distinct?

102