In situations like this, I sometimes try to find an analogy where I have skin in the game so that I can understand the optimal limits of engagement. Because sometimes debating the factual accuracy of a historic theory involves power dynamics about what sorts of theories get debated and which ones are given a pass.
For me, the most useful "skin in the game" analogy is the one about "there's no such thing as pre-modern homosexuality because the idea of sexual orientation hadn't been invented yet." And, yeah, that theory also posits that there's no such thing as pre-modern heterosexuality. And yet...when the concept of heterosexuality is invisibly assumed in a historical theory, nobody feels the need to derail whatever the topic of discussion is to challenge that point. But people often *do* feel the need to derail discussions of queer history with the "no such thing as pre-modern sexual orientation" argument.
With regard to the Black Egyptians theory, my thoughts align very much with yours. But what I'd try to do is ask myself "what are the social dynamics of considering it important to challenge this theory with this person in this context?" Do I react differently than I might with any number of other historical theories that I disagree with? What is my end game?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2022-02-23 07:40 pm (UTC)For me, the most useful "skin in the game" analogy is the one about "there's no such thing as pre-modern homosexuality because the idea of sexual orientation hadn't been invented yet." And, yeah, that theory also posits that there's no such thing as pre-modern heterosexuality. And yet...when the concept of heterosexuality is invisibly assumed in a historical theory, nobody feels the need to derail whatever the topic of discussion is to challenge that point. But people often *do* feel the need to derail discussions of queer history with the "no such thing as pre-modern sexual orientation" argument.
With regard to the Black Egyptians theory, my thoughts align very much with yours. But what I'd try to do is ask myself "what are the social dynamics of considering it important to challenge this theory with this person in this context?" Do I react differently than I might with any number of other historical theories that I disagree with? What is my end game?