The History Thread

[The Unseen]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Ugh. Pseudo pop-history.

Or pop pseudo-history :D

[Halsey]

Was that a reply to my post?

[bearsfan_51]

It was. I'm not a fan of people without degrees "doing history." It's like having your gallbladder removed by an auto mechanic.

[Halsey]

Yeah, "Hardcore History" is not pseudo pop history. It's target audience is people who want more than 'pop history'. Hence the name "Hardcore History". You should listen to an episode before you knock it. The episodes on The Eastern Front of WW2 and the Punic Wars are fascinating.

[bearsfan_51]

Just like a "hardcore" diet pill really isn't just made of sugar.

I know what Dan Carlin does. It's pop history. Honestly, that's being kind. The History Channel is pop history, Carlin is just a crank.

[Halsey]

I get it. You're trying to play the part of the elitist history snob, right? You had me going for a sec. What are you gonna tell me next? You spend your free time pouring over old manuscripts and papyrus records? Good one! :D

[Giantsfan1080]

The History Channel hardly has any history anyway.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by Halsey

You're trying to play the part of the elitist history snob, right?

I'm totally an elitist. I am verifiably more educated than over 99% of the population. Just like a doctor is better educated about medicine and surgery than a bus driver.

You spend your free time pouring over old manuscripts and papyrus records?

What exactly do you think historians do?

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I'm totally an elitist. I am verifiably more educated than over 99% of the population. Just like a doctor is better educated about medicine and surgery than a bus driver.

What exactly do you think historians do?

Try to convince people on message boards of how educated and above the rest of the population they are?

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Z in fact, most historians do. Those that don't admit it are lying. Nobody dedicates their entire lives to studying something unless they have an end goal in mind.

Oh I realize that full well. But when people start placing their agenda into their historical work it becomes BS.

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I haven't read enough Zinn to make that determination, but he's revered by most historians.

As far as the bold part, two of my history Profs were the ones who initially brought his bias to my attention when I asked a question pertaining his writing. Sure enough, I found it for myself reading it too.

I should probably state that as well, I am making somewhat of ignorant statement considered I haven't read 'a ton' by the guy, I just got the impression from what I did read, which was a few books and articles.
* You just got me to admit I was somewhat in the wrong. Admission of guilt= loss of power. My candidate, Machiavelli, wouldn't be proud of my tactics.

Edit- Also, LOL at someone calling a historian who puts down the history channel ( the same channel that has that Pawn shop show, AX men, American pickers and life AFTER people as part of their regular programing) an elitist. He's trying to show you that stuff is worthless drivel, dumb-ed down for people without the patience to make an attempt learn it for themselves.

[bearsfan_51]

I was answering your ******* question. Don't ask stupid questions if you don't want obvious answers.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Oh I realize that full well. But when people start placing their agenda into their historical work it becomes BS.

People that study, say, Nazi Germany, usually have a strong anti-Nazi agenda. Does that make their work BS?

Doctors that study disease usually are anti-disease, does that make their work BS?

* You just got me to admit I was somewhat in the wrong. Admission of guilt= loss of power. My candidate, Machiavelli, wouldn't be proud of my tactics.

If it makes you feel any better, the Bears suck.

[tjsunstein]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

I'm totally an elitist. I am verifiably more educated than over 99% of the population.

Count me in that 1%. :)

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

People that study, say, Nazi Germany, usually have a strong anti-Nazi agenda. Does that make their work BS?

Valid, but probably not as applicable, most people are anti-Nazi...

Doctors that study disease usually are anti-disease, does that make their work BS?

Yeah, if they're doing their work to push bogus pills for Pfizer so they get some scrilla on the side.

Actually, I don't think that one is too relevant to history.

If it makes you feel any better, the Bears suck.

Not really, I already knew that. They're gonna go hog wild in free agency though?

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Valid, but probably not as applicable, most people are anti-Nazi...

So an agenda is only ok if lots of people already agree with you? What's the point of doing scholarship then?

[Brent]

I made that Howard Zinn remark because he's talking about telling students to un-learn everything they know about US history. Somewhat the premise of A People's History, whether or not you feel it's misguided.

Do I think he's %100 true about what he says? **** no, what historian is? Do I enjoy reading multiple views on a single event? Yes, I appreciate multiple interpretations, as I am a teacher of literary analysis.

[DoughBoy]

I'm writing a paper for history tm and here is my question.


What rights, if any, were taken from the colonist by the British parliment or monarchy?


I might not be asking that correctly, but it looks like colonist had it pretty good. My middle and high school teachers lied to me. :(

[dabears10]

What I think some are forgetting is that History is an on going debate. People who have interest in one topic is already going to have a predetermined opinion. TT you did not like the fact that people who study the Holocaust are anti-Nazi, but Women are predominant in Women's activism history as well African Americans in Civil Rights.

Every secondary source you are going to read is going to try to persuade you, whether you agree with what they present is up to you but the fact they are trying to persuade is not a negative belief.

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

So an agenda is only ok if lots of people already agree with you?

Stop making insinuations of what I'm saying, dagnabbit!

Originally Posted by dabears10

TT you did not like the fact that people who study the Holocaust are anti-Nazi, but Women are predominant in Women's activism history as well African Americans in Civil Rights.
.

Yes, I'm well aware people who study certain areas of history/academia in general have agendas.

[LizardState]

Originally Posted by Halsey

Yeah, "Hardcore History" is not pseudo pop history. It's target audience is people who want more than 'pop history'. Hence the name "Hardcore History". You should listen to an episode before you knock it. The episodes on The Eastern Front of WW2 and the Punic Wars are fascinating.

I've heard of Hardcore History but never seen or heard it.

Hardcore History > History Channel? THC is very even-handed where the Liberal/Conservative biases are concerned, they've done a very good job imo of purging any agendas from their segments.

[Giantsfan1080]

This needed a bump.


I like Beer Baron's rules.

3 rules of French warfare:

1.) They can win when led by a non-Frenchman
2.) When America does most of the fighting
3.) When they are fighting other french

[FuzzyGopher]

Originally Posted by DoughBoy

I'm writing a paper for history tm and here is my question.


What rights, if any, were taken from the colonist by the British parliment or monarchy?


I might not be asking that correctly, but it looks like colonist had it pretty good. My middle and high school teachers lied to me. :(

England relied heavily on the colonies, they needed wood from America to build ships for trade and to build up their navy. America was also an integral part of the triangular trade system that brought new goods into England, which were then taxed. English merchant's also made loans to the colonies and charged them interest, this also helped strengthen England's economy.

After the capitalization of agriculture England turned all Warren Buffet and went from working to live to living to work...or something. Some guy named Weber believed in that anyway.

[diabsoule]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

The History Channel hardly has any history anyway.

I call it the Nazi Channel because most of their specials are of Germans during WWII

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

This needed a bump.


I like Beer Baron's rules.

3 rules of French warfare:

1.) They can win when led by a non-Frenchman
2.) When America does most of the fighting
3.) When they are fighting other french

That view is such an ignorant American view of the French military and includes, although not limited to, one major flaw: Napoleon. While born to a minor noble Italian family, Napoleon was educated in France from the age of 10, learned all of his military training from schools in France, commanding French armies, and conquered mostly non-French armies.

Also, if it wasn't for the French coming to the aid of America during the revolution then Cornwallis would have escaped Yorktown courtesy of the British navy and landed elsewhere in the colonies. France, recognizing a chance to strike at their hated British enemies, recognized an opportunity to strike them a blow (which was influenced by what England did to them during the French & Indian War) and lent their navy to the Americans cause. Their navy defeated the British outside of Yorktown which caused Cornwallis to surrender.

Sure, we can belittle the French military for being invaded twice from the same direction in two subsequent wars by the same enemy but our help in WWI and WWII was payback for what the French helped us accomplish during the revolution.

[Shahin]

It is also laughable that the French built the Maginot line primarily on the German border to prevent getting raped by Germans after WW1. They did this even though the Germans attacked through Belgium and Luxembourg in that particular war.

They'd go on to repeat the same general strategy in world war 2, going just above the most fortified part of the Maginot Line, with hilarious effectiveness.


I don't think when people make fun of the French military that they are being 100% serious...they obviously have had more success than we give them credit for. They are extremely easy to poke fun at, though.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by diabsoule

I call it the Nazi Channel because most of their specials are of Germans during WWII



That view is such an ignorant American view of the French military and includes, although not limited to, one major flaw: Napoleon. While born to a minor noble Italian family, Napoleon was educated in France from the age of 10, learned all of his military training from schools in France, commanding French armies, and conquered mostly non-French armies.

Also, if it wasn't for the French coming to the aid of America during the revolution then Cornwallis would have escaped Yorktown courtesy of the British navy and landed elsewhere in the colonies. France, recognizing a chance to strike at their hated British enemies, recognized an opportunity to strike them a blow (which was influenced by what England did to them during the French & Indian War) and lent their navy to the Americans cause. Their navy defeated the British outside of Yorktown which caused Cornwallis to surrender.

Sure, we can belittle the French military for being invaded twice from the same direction in two subsequent wars by the same enemy but our help in WWI and WWII was payback for what the French helped us accomplish during the revolution.

Well I think the revolutionary war example falls under rule #2. While the French were vital in the US success in the war Americans did the vast bulk of the fighting.