### ch02p47 what people focus on in history is skewed > History… celebrates the battlefields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the ploughed fields whereby we thrive; it knows the names of kings’ bastards but cannot tell us the origin of wheat. That is the way of human folly. > <div></div> > <cite> Jean-Henry Casimir Fabre, nineteeth-century French botanist</cite> I FEEL SO SEEN. This is basically the entire premise of my approach to history. I don’t give a shit about WWII or the Persian generals that fought the Greeks. I want to know about things that _matter_ and _teach us things about our nature and our future_. It’s the same phenomenon the people at [[rAskHistorians]] talk about, where the vast majority of the questions they get are about slaves and Nazis and it’s exhausting. I know that part of it is because historians generally focus on things we have actual records for, and the archaeological record has enormous gaps, but some of it is the same thing that leads to boys playing cowboys and Indians and “war” and joining the SCA. Similar to the complaints [[Sean Manning]] was making about being [wrong about the HEMA movement](https://bookandsword.com/2016/03/19/i-was-wrong-about-the-hema-movement/) where it’s less about the history and more about feeling special while being a jock. #articleseed #articleseed/addendum - [[Tamed by Alice Roberts#ch02p47 what people focus on in history is skewed|View in Vault]]