I hate be a “well ackchyually” guy but Edward Gibbon was more of a figure influenced by the Enlightenment rather then Protestant English culture. Much of the controversy surrounding his work, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire stems from one of his theories being that Christianity was an important cause to Rome’s decline. This is more …
I hate be a “well ackchyually” guy but Edward Gibbon was more of a figure influenced by the Enlightenment rather then Protestant English culture. Much of the controversy surrounding his work, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire stems from one of his theories being that Christianity was an important cause to Rome’s decline. This is more reflective of his Enlightenment values of being skeptical toward religion rather then a actual historical cause. Though Gibbon much like Voltaire due to his skepticism of religion was by extension “hateful” and not liberal by todays standards because he didn’t see Jews as “special” rather instead superstitious and hateful toward the rest of mankind.
What hair are you even splitting here? I don't know what Gibbons' sincere religious beliefs are. I do know that, despite the semi defeat of Cromwellianism, the fixation on individual moral purity remained in a watered down form in 18th c England. This undoubtedly influenced part of Gibbons' theory for Rome's decline. Gibbons' work on the decline of Rome was very influential on later Victorian obsession with civic campaigns against degeneracy.
I know a lot of right wingers love Gibbons' work and get defensive when you question this theory. I think Gibbons' contributions are classic and thought provoking, he deserves the respect he gets. But that doesn't mean his historical work does not suffer from ideological prejudices that may lead us to incorrect historical conclusions. You are missing my point on this topic in the article which is not to debate the minutae of gibbons.
Sorry, it’s just I’ve never heard of Gibbon being connected to Protestant moral purity. But to go back to the content in your article and on the topic of people looking back in history through an ideological lens, do you think future historians in China for example will accept America’s own mythic narrative that it’s decline was connected to “Americans holding onto Whitness” or will they acknowledge the Jewish role in sucking America dry and holding its White population in utter contempt. It would be interesting for a future Chinese historian contrasting with how they dealt with problematic elements in ethnic minority populations like the Uyghurs with America’s constant appeasement to Blacks and allowing them wreck havoc upon the White population with little consequence.
I hate be a “well ackchyually” guy but Edward Gibbon was more of a figure influenced by the Enlightenment rather then Protestant English culture. Much of the controversy surrounding his work, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire stems from one of his theories being that Christianity was an important cause to Rome’s decline. This is more reflective of his Enlightenment values of being skeptical toward religion rather then a actual historical cause. Though Gibbon much like Voltaire due to his skepticism of religion was by extension “hateful” and not liberal by todays standards because he didn’t see Jews as “special” rather instead superstitious and hateful toward the rest of mankind.
What hair are you even splitting here? I don't know what Gibbons' sincere religious beliefs are. I do know that, despite the semi defeat of Cromwellianism, the fixation on individual moral purity remained in a watered down form in 18th c England. This undoubtedly influenced part of Gibbons' theory for Rome's decline. Gibbons' work on the decline of Rome was very influential on later Victorian obsession with civic campaigns against degeneracy.
I know a lot of right wingers love Gibbons' work and get defensive when you question this theory. I think Gibbons' contributions are classic and thought provoking, he deserves the respect he gets. But that doesn't mean his historical work does not suffer from ideological prejudices that may lead us to incorrect historical conclusions. You are missing my point on this topic in the article which is not to debate the minutae of gibbons.
Sorry, it’s just I’ve never heard of Gibbon being connected to Protestant moral purity. But to go back to the content in your article and on the topic of people looking back in history through an ideological lens, do you think future historians in China for example will accept America’s own mythic narrative that it’s decline was connected to “Americans holding onto Whitness” or will they acknowledge the Jewish role in sucking America dry and holding its White population in utter contempt. It would be interesting for a future Chinese historian contrasting with how they dealt with problematic elements in ethnic minority populations like the Uyghurs with America’s constant appeasement to Blacks and allowing them wreck havoc upon the White population with little consequence.