"...pirate ranks include Jean Lafitte, a hero of The War of 1812 and whose base of operations can still be found in New Orleans."
One man's hero is another man's villain. We burned the White House in that glorious 1812 War of yours. Ha ha ha. And you do not teach that history in your schools, I learned from my American wife...
Out of jest. Historical and not eulogised Lafitte was an outlaw who smuggled goods against the laws of your country and took part in the war in exchange for a pardon for his crimes. Most historical pirates, corsairs and privateers were individuals of highly questionable ethics if not outright criminal, including my dear Francis Drake. Nevertheless, and psychologists like Mr Wright should know that, pirates come in our culture to represent a symbol of rebellion and refusal to bend to oppressive laws. If Mr Wright would like to dictate the social media avatars that academics can use to be considered respectable, we are at an all time low.
On the specific matter. I think that Mr Wright believes to be saved by the "Such individuals include, but are not limited to" premised sentence. I have seen it used as a safeguard from accusations of discrimination, by people who then maintain that their mentioning those categories is just in order to encourage submissions from underrepresented groups, but does not limit submissions to them nor has any bearing in the actual process of selection, which is done on merit.
Unfortunately I fear that the initial statement defeats that purpose... "The editorial leadership team for the Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science seeks nominations for 4 editorial fellowship positions for early-career psychologists from historically underrepresented groups." There is no "not limited to" clause. Pretty damning.
I miss, though, as a historian, the barb about studying Fascism only on the right. Fascism is by definition a very specific and historically detailed ideology of the right. Totalitarianism on the left takes different names and different shapes, although it is equally illiberal and murderous.
I have not read Jason Stanley. Does he give a generic illiberal, authoritarian attitude the name of Fascism, in the way of Antifa? Because if he does, he is a REALLY poor scholar.
On pirates. Yeah sorta. BUT, I love Drake. Britain was a 2nd rate power terrified of the Spanish (for good reason, they were at the peak of their empire), till Drake came along. And, for all their flaws, I'll take the 17th century Brits over the 17th century Spanish any day. Those Brits ultimately, in the long arc of history, played a huge role in laying a foundation that led to the bringing of liberal democracy to the world. But back to Drake. Let's count his accomplishments:
Relentless bleeding of Spanish treasure ships.
First person to circumnavigate globe with crew intact.
Daring Cadiz raid that delayed the Armada by a year, leading to its ultimate failure.
Opened the seas to free trade and shipping.
Central figure in the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
Captured Spanish slaves and, if they joined his crew, paid them like the rest of his crew.
No person is perfect or morally pure, but I LOVE DRAKE.
Lafitte was a mixed bag, but, Hell, who isn't? He was still a war hero.
But look, I am a Jewish dissident within academia, and been subject to attempts at ostracism and personal attacks that, and perhaps I am overdoing it here, but if so, only a little ... have a certain cultural/historical resonance. Denounced for using a metaphor from Fiddler?
Which gets me to my favorite pirates. The Jews driven to piracy to escape the Spanish Inquisition. They were also deeply flawed, especially by modern standards. Some were slavers, but, Hell, the Spanish were, at the time, the biggest slavers, and they learned the slave trade from the Muslims of North Africa who they first expelled and then also did relentless battle with. But they bled and bled and bled the Spanish.
It is history but also a delicious metaphor. And if I get denounced for this metaphor by another academic bookburner? Who gives a shit? If you are not already a paid subscriber, I recommend doing it for a month (its cheap, like $5). Here is a trick: Download the posts that are for paid subscribers, then cancel the subscription (unless you just want to support what I do, I do put this money to good use, see my post advocating for paid subscriptions). But I bet you will consider this post, for paid subscribers, alone worth the $5:
Lee, I have read every single post you have written :) I have been a subscriber since I found you thanks to a German friend over the Fiedler affair.
You taught me a lot about the state of American academia (I thought that Britain's was bad but it is not half as much it seems. Canada, where I live now, is terrifying at present in its pure Orwellian blindness. I bless every hour the fact that I chose not to pursue an academic position, after the MLitt, but just continued to independently study while doing other stuff for survival). I have shared the piece on your Positionality Statement with many North American friends in order to clear the fog from their minds (the response of the European ones has mostly been QUOI? they require what?).
And I feel that I understand you, as we seem to have many things in common besides age and Judentum. It is the only reason why I commented in a joking way.
Thank you for loving the Brits, for I am one, and I love us too (far from blindly of course). I love Drake as well... as a boy I had a makeshift boat dubbed the Golden Hind; yes, he was also a rogue, as I learned when I began studying History, and pretty corrupt. But nevertheless, the balance of his actions, for Queen and Country, was a net positive. He also is a good symbol. Symbols matter. I can tell you in great detail what a shitty king Richard the Lionheart actually was, and it is important not to make a romance of history when talking actual history, but the symbol he represents in our imagination and culture is glorious and I would not want it to disappear ever.
The Jewish pirates of the Mediterranean make for great stories and great symbols indeed. Of course they were flawed by modern standards, those are not the standards by which any serious historical discourse can be made -- want to rejoice in the company that Social Sciences have in their plight? Let us talk of Presentism in History.
I will continue to occasionally jest with you if you do not mind. Especially since it is liable to bring me such enjoyable responses. But in a while. Half of my family is in Israel and I have a cloud on my mind at present.
"Why I won't bother pursuing a PhD" part the umpteenth
"...pirate ranks include Jean Lafitte, a hero of The War of 1812 and whose base of operations can still be found in New Orleans."
One man's hero is another man's villain. We burned the White House in that glorious 1812 War of yours. Ha ha ha. And you do not teach that history in your schools, I learned from my American wife...
Out of jest. Historical and not eulogised Lafitte was an outlaw who smuggled goods against the laws of your country and took part in the war in exchange for a pardon for his crimes. Most historical pirates, corsairs and privateers were individuals of highly questionable ethics if not outright criminal, including my dear Francis Drake. Nevertheless, and psychologists like Mr Wright should know that, pirates come in our culture to represent a symbol of rebellion and refusal to bend to oppressive laws. If Mr Wright would like to dictate the social media avatars that academics can use to be considered respectable, we are at an all time low.
On the specific matter. I think that Mr Wright believes to be saved by the "Such individuals include, but are not limited to" premised sentence. I have seen it used as a safeguard from accusations of discrimination, by people who then maintain that their mentioning those categories is just in order to encourage submissions from underrepresented groups, but does not limit submissions to them nor has any bearing in the actual process of selection, which is done on merit.
Unfortunately I fear that the initial statement defeats that purpose... "The editorial leadership team for the Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science seeks nominations for 4 editorial fellowship positions for early-career psychologists from historically underrepresented groups." There is no "not limited to" clause. Pretty damning.
I miss, though, as a historian, the barb about studying Fascism only on the right. Fascism is by definition a very specific and historically detailed ideology of the right. Totalitarianism on the left takes different names and different shapes, although it is equally illiberal and murderous.
I have not read Jason Stanley. Does he give a generic illiberal, authoritarian attitude the name of Fascism, in the way of Antifa? Because if he does, he is a REALLY poor scholar.
On pirates. Yeah sorta. BUT, I love Drake. Britain was a 2nd rate power terrified of the Spanish (for good reason, they were at the peak of their empire), till Drake came along. And, for all their flaws, I'll take the 17th century Brits over the 17th century Spanish any day. Those Brits ultimately, in the long arc of history, played a huge role in laying a foundation that led to the bringing of liberal democracy to the world. But back to Drake. Let's count his accomplishments:
Relentless bleeding of Spanish treasure ships.
First person to circumnavigate globe with crew intact.
Daring Cadiz raid that delayed the Armada by a year, leading to its ultimate failure.
Opened the seas to free trade and shipping.
Central figure in the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
Captured Spanish slaves and, if they joined his crew, paid them like the rest of his crew.
No person is perfect or morally pure, but I LOVE DRAKE.
Lafitte was a mixed bag, but, Hell, who isn't? He was still a war hero.
But look, I am a Jewish dissident within academia, and been subject to attempts at ostracism and personal attacks that, and perhaps I am overdoing it here, but if so, only a little ... have a certain cultural/historical resonance. Denounced for using a metaphor from Fiddler?
Which gets me to my favorite pirates. The Jews driven to piracy to escape the Spanish Inquisition. They were also deeply flawed, especially by modern standards. Some were slavers, but, Hell, the Spanish were, at the time, the biggest slavers, and they learned the slave trade from the Muslims of North Africa who they first expelled and then also did relentless battle with. But they bled and bled and bled the Spanish.
It is history but also a delicious metaphor. And if I get denounced for this metaphor by another academic bookburner? Who gives a shit? If you are not already a paid subscriber, I recommend doing it for a month (its cheap, like $5). Here is a trick: Download the posts that are for paid subscribers, then cancel the subscription (unless you just want to support what I do, I do put this money to good use, see my post advocating for paid subscriptions). But I bet you will consider this post, for paid subscribers, alone worth the $5:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/victory-lap
It is very Drakeian in spirit.
Lee, I have read every single post you have written :) I have been a subscriber since I found you thanks to a German friend over the Fiedler affair.
You taught me a lot about the state of American academia (I thought that Britain's was bad but it is not half as much it seems. Canada, where I live now, is terrifying at present in its pure Orwellian blindness. I bless every hour the fact that I chose not to pursue an academic position, after the MLitt, but just continued to independently study while doing other stuff for survival). I have shared the piece on your Positionality Statement with many North American friends in order to clear the fog from their minds (the response of the European ones has mostly been QUOI? they require what?).
And I feel that I understand you, as we seem to have many things in common besides age and Judentum. It is the only reason why I commented in a joking way.
Thank you for loving the Brits, for I am one, and I love us too (far from blindly of course). I love Drake as well... as a boy I had a makeshift boat dubbed the Golden Hind; yes, he was also a rogue, as I learned when I began studying History, and pretty corrupt. But nevertheless, the balance of his actions, for Queen and Country, was a net positive. He also is a good symbol. Symbols matter. I can tell you in great detail what a shitty king Richard the Lionheart actually was, and it is important not to make a romance of history when talking actual history, but the symbol he represents in our imagination and culture is glorious and I would not want it to disappear ever.
The Jewish pirates of the Mediterranean make for great stories and great symbols indeed. Of course they were flawed by modern standards, those are not the standards by which any serious historical discourse can be made -- want to rejoice in the company that Social Sciences have in their plight? Let us talk of Presentism in History.
I will continue to occasionally jest with you if you do not mind. Especially since it is liable to bring me such enjoyable responses. But in a while. Half of my family is in Israel and I have a cloud on my mind at present.