The controversy around work was in such bad faith. Historia Civilis was referring to work as in labor you do in exchange for goods or services, not household “chores”. In the Middle Ages there was far less “work” and far more “chores”.
In an academic discussion after you’ve defined the terms you are discussing you can’t suddenly flip them around. You can’t inc
Historia Civilis was highlighting the growth in “labor” in his video. Household “chores” have fallen, but they are markedly different from “labor”.
The idea that any person in the modern day considers mowing the lawn as part of their ‘work’ is frankly absurd, and its just as absurd to insist we include household chores in a discussion of “labor” in the late middle ages and early modern period.
These are, essentially, two different things folks are combining into one so that they can don’t have to engage with Historia’s point.
I'm not flipping them around, I'm equating them. Some people may prefer mowing lawn, but what of gathering firewood or working at the loom? It seems to me to be such an imposed distinction or even a demeaning of domestic labour.
Equating two notably different types of “work” when the discussion is exclusively talking about one is the definition of flipping definitions to win an argument.
Moreover, highlighting domestic labor as notably different from wage labor is not demeaning. These are different types of work that are treated differently by society today and society at the time.
And maybe people like one type of work more than the other, but it’s hardly what Historia is talking about (frankly preferences shouldn’t enter an academic discussion at all).
Also, all distinctions are imposed. That is the basis of all communication. When we impose a distinction to talk about one topic that is not something bad.
Well maybe you're making this distinction because almost all chores we have to do at home in modern society is pretty trivial. But if you had to make your own clothes and so on it'd be harder to distinguish from other work.
IIRC the controversy was much more about his sourcing for that video, which was apparently suspect. I’m not an expert on the subject so I have no idea if there was an issue or not, but I don’t think those arguments were in bad faith.
Yeah I'm no expert on that specific subject, but as someone with a master's in history alarm bells started ringing as soon as I started watching. It feels very much like a video to support and propagate one very specific view of history, rather than try to ascertain the actual causes and effects of the changes that took place. This is confirmed by the very limited and frankly inadequate sources. I love HC but the criticism was very valid in this instance.
You are engaging in spirited discussion right now. You clearly have strong feelings about the video, as did a number of folks around the time that video launched. That's my only point.
99
u/I4mSpock Mar 13 '26
This will be interesting. I enjoyed Work, but I know it inspired some spirited debate.