The History Thread

[Giantsfan1080]

Most of it was based on the French Revolution. The French Revolution had major changes in everyday life plus different stages. I disagreed with most of the professors that said that about the U.S.

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by Brent

just start your first day by beating a student upside his head with A People's History of The United States ;)

Howard Zinn was a 'historian' with an agenda to prove white people were mean to brown people.

[Giantsfan1080]

I hope no one here likes McCullogh.

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by 619

Disagree with the prof. History is entirely based on one's interpretation, that's what I'm continuing to learn everyday.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. History is based more or less on facts, people's interpretation of those facts is what leads to discrepancies.

[619]

True. Although the validity of said facts can attribute to discrepancies and leave a trail of doubt in the minds of historians, which is why they can never seem to come to a consensus on anything. The further you go back in time, the less reliable the sources used, even primary sources for that matter. You do not know for certain the biases or intentions of the author, and that's what makes this whole process of interpretation and analysis of historical studies so grueling.

[Giantsfan1080]

"The winners of war write their own history."

[619]

I'd also like to add that you American students have far too much of a recent view of history, particularly because of the emphasis on your own country's history, which is acceptable. ;)

For example, do you think when interpreting facts I'm actually going to stand here and believe that the Bubonic plague killed up to two-thirds of the European population?

[619]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

"The winners of war write their own history."

Exactly. In many cases, who is to really say who came out victorious?

[the decider13]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

"The winners of war write their own history."

I was thinking this while reading the first few posts on this page. I was going to post it, then I saw you beat me to it :(

There goes my chance to look smart.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by 619

Exactly. In many cases, who is to really say who came out victorious?

Well when one's people get totally wiped out I think you can say who was victorious. In other cases, yes it's difficult.

[bearsfan_51]

The amount of money the 13 colonies brought into the empire absolutely pales in comparison to Jamaica, India, and basically every other colony they had. Those are simply facts. The loss of Haiti by the French was vastly more significant economically than the loss of the 13 colonies by the Brits, at least at the time.

[bearsfan_51]

TT, are you thinking of going into academia, because you're P.O.V. would be strongly rejected. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it would.

Also, most U.S. historians would say that the American Revolution really wasn't a revolution at its core. Ditto the Latin American Revolutions.

[YAYareaRB]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

The amount of money the 13 colonies brought into the empire absolutely pales in comparison to Jamaica, India, and basically every other colony they had. Those are simply facts. The loss of Haiti by the French was vastly more significant than the loss of the 13 colonies by the Brits.

Only because the people of Haiti were slaves to the French and everything done in Haiti was for France.

The people of the 13 colonies were never enslaved by the Brits or ordered to work for the king or anything. Most of the money the colonists did give to the king were from shipped goods and taxes. It definitely pales in comparison to the revenue from the sugar, coffee, and indigo industries of Haiti. I'm not a history buff or anything of that nature I just thought I would add my two cents. :)

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by YAYareaRB

Only because the people of Haiti were slaves to the French and everything done in Haiti was for France.

The people of the 13 colonies were never enslaved by the Brits or ordered to work for the king or anything. Most of the money the colonists did give to the king were from shipped goods and taxes. It definitely pales in comparison to the revenue from the sugar, coffee, and indigo industries of Haiti. I'm not a history buff or anything of that nature I just thought I would add my two cents. :)

There were tons of slaves in the 13 colonies. Those that weren't slaves were frequently indentured servants, a short-term form of slavery. The form of economy in the colonies was less export based primarily because they were incapable of growing large staple crops outside of tobacco and cotton (which prior to the cotton gin was hard to mass produce), not due to any philosophical differences about labor conditions (see: Jamaica, a British colony)

[LizardState]

Time for a former history major to chime in:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080
"The winners of war write their own history."

Exactly. In many cases, who is to really say who came out victorious?

Winners not only write the history but whitewash several different shades too. It's all interpretation & subjective, like any human activity.

When I took Military History way back in the day (1973) as an undergrad our textbook was the Wars of America by Robert Leckie. Leckie wrote it during the late 60s & took an immense amount of heat there in ultraconservative Texas for his so-called liberal slant where he said that the War of 1812 was an attempt by a young imperial America to expand at the expense of Canada, which failed, & the Mexican War was an attempt to expand at the expense of Mexico, which succeeded.

Controversial then, not so much now as both sides of the political spectrum seem to buy into the thesis of Manifest Destiny in 19th Century America = imperial expansionism, ironically begun wiht Jefferson & the Lousiana Purchase, the President who least wanted imperial possession or those infamous "entanglements with foreign powers" in any way, shape or form after his generation broke from Britain in our Revolution (which we wouldn't have won at all except for massive military help from the French). Leckie was a WW2 hero who has since passed on, I saw in my TV Guide magazine yesterday he's being played by an actor in a principal p/o the upcoming HBO Speilberg-produced series The Pacific, & he's being hailed as a major American historian of record.

Personally I highly recommend The Wars of America, the updated version covering Korea & Vietnam is the best one.

[CJSchneider]

Originally Posted by LizardState

... that the War of 1812 was an attempt by a young imperial America to expand at the expense of Canada

Leckie needed to do more research on

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

TT, are you thinking of going into academia, because you're P.O.V. would be strongly rejected. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it would.

Probably not. I'm pursuing for a job in intelligence now believe it or not. But which opinion are you referring to?

Also, you saying POV instead of typing out 'point of view' proves you watch tons of internet porn. ;)

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Probably not. But which opinion are you referring to?

Also, you saying POV instead of typing out 'point of view' proves you watch tons of internet porn. ;)

Haha....I don't need proof that I like porn.

Your dismissive comments about Zinn for starters. I don't do U.S. history so I don't really care about Zinn, but its pretty hard to get anywhere in academia if you aren't writing about race, class, or gender (I study the church, so I work around it a bit). You also strike me as conservative, not in the political sense, but the intellectual sense. Most historians would wince at the idea that historiography is based on facts.

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Your dismissive comments about Zinn for starters. I don't do U.S. history so I don't really care about Zinn, but its pretty hard to get anywhere in academia if you aren't writing about race, class, or gender (I study the church, so I work around it a bit).

I can see that. But have you ever read Zinn? His bias is almost undeniable if you ask me.

However, Like you, I'm no US history nut, so i'm no expert on the subject. I am also primarily interested in the church(Greek orthodox especially), well as "interested" and in-depth as an undergraduate can get I suppose, and structured my classes around it pretty heavily.

You also strike me as conservative, not in the political sense, but the intellectual sense. Most historians would wince at the idea that historiography is based on facts.

Yeah, right after I worded it as based on facts I wanted to edit the comment because of how it would come off. I guess I was just trying to refute the point that history is based purely on interpretation. Anyone can interpret history in the manner they want ( Dan Brown and the idiots who think that crap is real for example), but it doesn't make them a historian.

[LizardState]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Also, you saying POV instead of typing out 'point of view' proves you watch tons of internet porn. ;)

Or he's a Film/Drama/Literature major......

[CJSchneider]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

Also, you saying POV instead of typing out 'point of view' proves you watch tons of internet porn. ;)

My name is CJ Schneider and I approve of this message.

[TitleTown088]

Originally Posted by LizardState

Or he's a Film/Drama/Literature major......

Nope, he's a history guy. Busted. Wait can he be busted if he's proud of it? haha

Originally Posted by CJSchneider

My name is CJ Schneider and I approve of this message.

I think that goes without saying CJ.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

I can see that. But have you ever read Zinn? His bias is almost undeniable if you ask me.

Zinn openly admitted he had an agenda, 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.

The only time I think you can really say someone has a bias, however, is if it makes what they are saying fundamentally untrue. I haven't read enough Zinn to make that determination, but he's revered by most historians.

[Halsey]

If you guys like history you should listen to one or more of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts. He gives a number of them away free and you can buy others for like a dollar a piece if you want more. Really informative and entertaining stuff for history enthusiasts.

[bearsfan_51]

Ugh. Pseudo pop-history.