Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thus, if you are questioning the legitimacy of a particular historian's report on something, the innuendo approach is not going to impress other historians.
Funny, I don't care about historians at all.
Most historians have no idea what they're talking about because they don't have the actual experience of havin' been there; its all just theory to them. Unless a historian can link the past with the present he's just another philosopher.
Originally Posted by Grandstander Funny, I don't care about historians at all.
Most historians have no idea what they're talking about because they don't have the actual experience of havin' been there; its all just theory to them. Unless a historian can link the past with the present he's just another philosopher.
I cannot take you seriously when you slander an entire profession on the basis of nothing. The idea that not being an eyewitness disqualifies all as reporters on events, is preposterous. By your standards, no one can write anything about George Washington any longer because no one is alive who saw him in action.
By your standards, no one can write anything about George Washington any longer because no one is alive who saw him in action.
They can write about George Washington as long as they acknowledge that they don't truly know him; George Washington might not have been how people have perceived him.
Any good philosopher knows he doesn't know 'reality' but this has never stopped him of talking about it.
My complaint is this. You are employing an argument which could be used at anytime against anything. That because some in some class have done A, then we must question the legitimacy of all in that class. That is why I ask for your particulars. Otherwise we have only innuendo.
Do you have much, or any experience with the atmosphere which prevails in the academic end of the history profession? As with any profession, it contains a mixture of elites and frauds, the fair minded and the partisans, the cautious and the carefree. There is plenty of professional envy and rivalries develop, but there is also a great weapon for vanquishing the frauds, exposing the partisans and correcting the carefree. The weapon is the academic journal. Yoru career is connected to the frequency and quality of your publications, and when your article makes it in, it is at the expense of someone else who thought his or her article more deserving. Thus there is a rotating element of watchdogs who dissect all that gets published, and if they detect error, then they can get published by producing an article which debunks the earlier one.
So, there is quite a bit of self regulation which takes place within the professional historical community and it is not easy to sustain yourself long if you are a fraud. Those who rise to the ranks of getting books published, will have typically done so after having passed through the crucible of the journal experience.
Thus, if you are questioning the legitimacy of a particular historian's report on something, the innuendo approach is not going to impress other historians. You must have the goods.
Anytime you deal with a government, you're dealing with a Machiavellian organization wherein the ends justify the means. Governments are EVIL, every single last one of them.
I cannot take you seriously when you slander an entire profession on the basis of nothing. The idea that not being an eyewitness disqualifies all as reporters on events, is preposterous. By your standards, no one can write anything about George Washington any longer because no one is alive who saw him in action.
Not preposterous at all. What is preposterous is telling someone who WAS THERE that they did not see what they saw, Rashomon.
Not preposterous at all. What is preposterous is telling someone who WAS THERE that they did not see what they saw, Rashomon.
The above isn't logical. Someone who was in NY City on 9/11, but was nowhere near the WTC when it was attacked, isn't magically converted into an eyewitness on the basis of proximity. By your reasoning, anyone who was in Japan in 1945, is an expert on everything about Japan. I have been in England, therefore I am qualified to write a biography of Margeret Thatcher? More qualified than someone who has studied her life but hasn't been in England?
If you were a contemporary who knew her PERSONALLY, you would be qualified, otherwise NO.
You ARE qualified, however, to write about England, and your experiences there.
Well, I shall leave you to your quaint eccentricity. One aspect of your idea that I do like is the possible application to organized religions. Since none of the popes, mullahs, rabbis or shamans have actually met any supreme being, they are obviously in no position to explain the nature and desires of that diety. Shut em all down as frauds I say.
Of course I was for that before I learned of your theory.
It had been clearly spelled out to the Japanese in the Potsdam Declaration, how the Allied were defining the defeat of Japan. Surrender meant conformity to the demands listed in that declaration.
Japan still had an army a million men strong fighting in China. Japan had more than a million for home defense, as well as mobilizing the entire population to aid in repelling the invaders. They had ten thousand planes ready for kamikaze attacks on Allied ships. I would hardly call that congruent with your phrase..."stops getting up."
If Japan wanted to surrender, they knew exactly what they had to do. They did not do it until after the nuclear attacks.
I agree except for one detail:
Japan was effectively neutered prior to The Bomb............it would have taken longer but by firebombing that country from one end to the other---------they would have ultimately surrendered IMHO.
Nukes simply hastened the process----------and, saved many (especially Japanese civilian) lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny, I don't care about historians at all.
Unless a historian can link the past with the present he's just another philosopher.
They can write about George Washington as long as they acknowledge that they don't truly know him; George Washington might not have been how people have perceived him.
