[IgorPartola]

You make very good points except your first sentence of your last paragraph. GoT is clearly a work of fiction and while the author made claims about it being rooted in reality, I don’t find the idea that we shouldn’t hold fiction to the same standard as non-fiction when it comes to historical accuracy all that crazy. After all, Star Wars is supposed to be ancient history, yet we don’t criticize it for historical inaccuracies. I think a much better ruler to apply here is whether the fictional account is believable or indeed possible with constraints of physics and sociology. I argue that believable storytelling is better for fiction than historical accuracy.

[fladrif]

But, as the author of this article noted before, we don't live in a world shaped by ancient star battling empires. We currently live in a world shaped by our history, and continue to shape our world based on how we understand ourselves and our past. If we distill our past into stereotypes we will forget where we come from and make decisions based off of inaccurate assumptions.

If we see the Native Americans as murdering rapists, how likely are we to give them restitution for the massacres we've inflicted upon them, or begin to provide them social support? And if you don't currently see them as such, how will fiction that impresses on the greater public of its veracity that it isn't so, and that the general impression of their culture is completely fabricated?

Fiction definitely shapes our society and our understanding, and if fiction as popular as this one claims to be realistic there is a responsibility to either confirm or counter it. Yes, storytelling is more important than accuracy, but when you claim the latter you had better prove it.

[dmurray]

If the 19th century Native Americans were a bit rapey or murdery by modern standards, that shouldn't affect how we treat their descendants today.

This argument is bad because it means well-meaning historians feel they need to whitewash the history of Indian tribes as noble savages, just to get the reaction they want today.

[xapata]

Sounds like you didn't read the author's discussion of the brutality of the same peoples.

[the_af]

> After all, Star Wars is supposed to be ancient history

Star Wars is "supposed" to be ancient history within the fiction of its own story. George Lucas doesn't think it actually is ancient history.

Contrast this with George Martin's assertion that the Dothraki are "an amalgam of steppe and plains cultures [...] seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy" (or that the sexual violence in his books mirrors that of the real medieval history). This is an "out of fictional universe" argument, different from Star War's fictional conceit that it takes place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away".

[oisdk]

I never said we should hold fiction to the same standards as non-fiction, that's obviously silly. I said that critiquing works of fiction like GoT from a historial perspective is fun, interesting, educational, and positive.

[pjc50]

> Star Wars is supposed to be ancient history

Star Wars is quite a clever setting because it's both vague and incredibly distant, which allows the film makers huge latitude to include tropes from cowboy, ronin, WW2 films etc without the worry of historical inaccuracy.

[dgb23]

Yes but it is a nice trick to make people read about history and culture.