max “maximilien” well
2.1K posts

max “maximilien” well
@maxnotdavid
aspiring baker




i'm actually more interested in popular history works that historians universally agree "yeah, that's a solid one." first one that comes to mind is "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" by @CharlesCMann




AOC: “America was founded in revolt of British aristocracy. The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time. It’s actually the most American thing in the world for us to be fighting for the working class. It’s actually patently un-American to transform our country into a place of kings and landed gentry”





Quite hard to square the American Revolution with a lot of grand narratives. Hard to contextualize within the Age of Revolutions because it wasn’t social. Can’t contextualize it within a narrative of British decline because they were on the cusp of total global hegemony







Reminder that the Roman “Empire” only conquered like 5% of the Earth’s land. 0% of underground or the depths of the sea. If you go by the Earth’s volume, they conquered virtually nothing.




"Women can't be presidents because they could start WWIll because of their period" A MAN After starting WWIl because he didn't get into art school




That claim is based on the fact that Hofstadter used Adorno's work. I don't think even Phil would dare say that Richard Hofstadter was not an important and influential intellectual in mid-century America. This highlights the problem with this 'counting citations' approach.











