Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
History Forum discussion
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »I see your point and to an extent agree that using fictional deceptions of event/characters can be a way to kick start discussions. I have in the past advised students to read certain fictional works to help them get the atmosphere of an age and bring some life to what can otherwise be dusty and dry 'facts' (usually the books I recommend are Neal Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy as he captures the end of the Stuart period/beginning of the Hanovarian well and ditto for C.J Sansom's Shardlake for his depiction of the paranoid fear that suffused Henry VIII's later reign).
But, having been at the teaching coalface I also understand MarchDub's utter frustration at having students 'argue' a point based entirely on 'what they saw on the telly'. Personally there have been moments when I could have gleefully slow-roasted the producers of The Tudors over a historically accurate pyre and handed those responsible for Elizabeth The Golden Age over to the Spanish Inquisition. I have had 3rd years 'reference' a work of fiction in their final dissertations.
On balance - I think we should encourage those who come 'here' to discuss the accuracy of fictional depictions as at least they are seeking to uncover the 'truth' behind the 'fiction' and not accepting the Braveheart/Michael Collins/Elizabeth versions. However, I would have little patience for an 'argument' that is based only on the fictional account.
If the source of someone's interest in an area of history is a tv programme, or a website, or a burlesque show, or a dream - so fookin what?so someone who posts "I was watching Boardwalk empire and I was wondering if someone could recommend a decent factual account of prohibition era America - in particular the Eastern Seaboard area because everyone knows about Chicago already!" is not a valid post for a history forum?
Or someone asking what elements of Boardwalk Empire are inaccurate from a historical point of view?
Allowing discussion of historical representation in mainstream media does not, imho, water down the validity of the forum - as long as the discussion remains on a historical theme and doesnt veer into "what do you think will happen next week?" type affair.
In fact, I think TV shows based on periods of history could only help to raise public awareness and interest in the subject. I'm sure the Tudors got a lot of people curious about that period of English history. if thats what urges them to ask questions and want to learn and discuss then I really dont see the issue with users using TV shows as a starting point for a discussion, just not as an ultimate resource that all other opinions must be measured against. (A bit like Dan Brown. I hate his books but I know so many people who had not read anything in ages until they picked up the DaVinci Code and from there they continued to read other (inevitably better!)books. I would have no issue with a user posting in literature "I just finished Dan Brown's book and I enjoyed it. Are there any other books set in the Vatican/Paris or ones that involve the FBI/hacking/super-computers or involve political intrigue/astronomical events ?" - Digital Fortress, the only book I have ever thrown away in case someone else had the misfortune of reading it!)
of course, thats my opinion. the opinion of the mods may vary
It is more important that they have the interest.
If the interest is genuine, separating fact from fiction will follow.
If someone cannot separate history from fiction, then they need education.
History and heritage is a fairly decent form of education - well, it has been for me anyway.
While passing through this thread, I would like to thank CD for making stuff novel and interesting and Marchdub for putting me on the straight and narrow.
0 -
-
-
-
I must admit this has gone viral among historians on Facebook
. 0 -
slowburner wrote: »History and heritage is a fairly decent form of education - well, it has been for me anyway.
While passing through this thread, I would like to thank CD for making stuff novel and interesting and Marchdub for putting me on the straight and narrow.
I think this is a very important point. The agenda is set by the people using the forum. Regular users who care about the forum help keep track on things by the manner of their posts. People who come new to the forum with a genuine interest will take their que from this.
It has been pointed out to me that this thread has focused on one particular issue rather than more general mannerisms. I believe that the comments here show there is a divergence of views in regard of using a historical drama as a starting point for a discussion.
I would like if people could also give there opinion on people posting their opinions. From a moderation point of view it can be difficult to know to what extent sources should be insisted on? So is it realistic to insist on sources for all posts, or just some posts, or just contentious posts, or some other level of control. I would like the views of both regular users and also people who may follow history less often.
Thanks.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
slowburner wrote: »I see a significant risk here of my personal dread: the clique.
On one level, there is the attempt to attain absolute truth in history and its methodology.
On another level there is the possibility that the history here could become some form of chimera.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, maybe it is.
This is not the Open University although I daresay you could probably learn as much here.
And therein lies the crux of the problem - how to balance the needs of an internet chat forum with the needs of those who demand academic standards of historiology.
The mods have a fairly difficult task - how not to put off newcomers and lurkers, without alienating the H & H regulars who rightly require a reasonable standard of verification.
History is a malleable discipline - it can never be a science. Science has central tenets of observation, hypothesis, experiment and repeatability. These tenets simply cannot apply to historiology.
As CD says, the 'facts' of history today are different to the 'facts' twenty years ago.
If they are mutable then they ain't facts.
You simply have to tolerate the concept that there is no such thing as an absolute, historical fact.
All we can ever do, is show the best evidence to support what we understand to be 'a fact'.
The liturgy of facts reeled out by a Christian Brother to a brow beaten, bored classroom twenty or forty years ago, were never questioned. Now, not to question facts would be the unconventional thing.
Just as historiology is malleable and evolving, so too is this forum. I suspect that this would be the natural order regardless of who is moderating.
And what about the loony radicals who pop up from time to time?
I think they are brilliant. Who else makes you check your facts so thoroughly? It can be an absolute delight to see a loo-la demolished intellectually.
But I take on board Marchdub's concern that there can be too much incitement to hatred on occasion but I have yet to see a loo-la persist in the forum for any length. I think they should just be taken with a pinch of salt and realise that they are adding spice to the mix.
Because History cannot be a science, there will always be argument. There will always be areas of contention. There will always be grey areas.
Without these thorns - it is not history, it is pedantry.
I see your point but have a few observations to make.
Firstly - like science, history does have a methodology consisting of extensive research of primary sources, and the presentation of objective interpretations of that evidence which constantly supplies references to the source material.
To be honest - history writing/lecturing should be conducted in the same way as a legal trial. Evidence is gathered, evaluated and objectively interpreted to construct the likeliest scenario according to the evidence. Evidence which does not fit the scenario cannot simply be discounted - it has to be dealt with or ones colleagues (opposing counsel
) will hammer you! Yes, there will always be argument - that is why it is vital that supporting evidence from primary sources is of paramount importance.
Plus - there are indisputable facts - Elizabeth I died in 1603 -fact. Spanish Armada sailed in 1588 - fact. WWI broke out in 1914 - fact.
One of the problems with how history was taught in Irish schools - and therefore the version of it that has seeped into the public (un)consciousness - was that a great deal of it was not based on the actual evidence, but on secondary interpretations which ignored the evidence which did not conform to either the religious (e.g.Ireland was always a staunchly Catholic country) or nationalist (e.g. Ireland was an ancient nation) polemic.
Even worse is that dreadful combination of the two -
Irish Catholic Nationalist historiography is sectarian in that it ignores or downplays the religion of the likes of Tone, Emmet, Mitchel etc, doesn't mention that Irish republicanism had it roots in Ulster Presbytarianism, ignores the actions of Catholic Mary Tudor in the spread of Anglicisation and while it may mention the Papal grant of Ireland to Henry II, is silent on the Papal grant of Ireland to Mary Tudor, downplays the role of the RCC in campaigning for the Act of Union and the excommunication of republicans during the War of Independence, plus gives the impression that the Penal Laws were nothing but an attempt by the British to keep Irish Catholics in poverty - ignoring that the Penal Laws were enacted in England, Wales and Scotland as well and was aimed at all non-Anglicans, so the Presbyterians of Scotland and the Methodists of Wales (for example) were just as oppressed by these laws.
Omissions/spin like this combine to paint a portrait of all those who struggled against Anglicisation and the loss of Irish independence as Catholic and their religion was an important driving factor in that struggle.
Unionist historiography is just as insidious in its own way (though it is rarely seen in the 26 counties after 1922, there was a huge amount of it published in the years before Home Rule was granted). It seeks to portray the Irish as barbarians who did nothing but kill each other and not only had no civilisation but were so steeped in superstitiousness and barbarity that we had to have civilisation forcibly imposed upon us for our own good.
Both of these interpretations contain kernals of 'fact' but due to their interpretations being so influenced by religious and political ideologies and their ignoring of any evidence that does not support their particular interpretations that they are highly subjective works of polemic rather then history.
People get very riled up about so-called revisionism, yet - in the case of Ireland - what we are experiencing over the last 30 years is a return to the primary sources to see if they really support 'what we learned in school' and the simple fact is - they don't. When historians publish these 'new' histories they are often vilified as they are threatening the status quo and challenging much of what was sold to us as part and parcel of our very national identity.
Now, I am not saying this does not happen in other countries too - the English, for example, are taught about the Golden Age of the Tudors - and there are many little Englander historians who make a damn fine living with books as TV programmes peddling this line. Yet, even a quick a look at the actual actions of the Tudors as described in documents from the period (including court documents) one equally quickly begins to conclude that Tudor England was not a pleasant place to live. To give one example - any one who has any interest in Elizabeth I, or seen Cate Blanchett's portrayal of her, will be familier with The Speech at Tilbury in advance of the Armada - it is considered to be one the great moments in English history as the Queen rallied her troops with stirring promises of fighting with them and how she treasured them, her people. What is rarely mentioned is that once her speech was over, Elizabeth got her royal bottom as far away from any possible battlesite a.s.a.p (tactically understandable as if the Spanish had landed they would want her in their possession as a priority) but, she also prevaricated and postponed the payment of her troops for so long (around 18 months - 2 years) that the thousands who died did so from starvation - they never having engaged the Spanish. Good Queen Bess ignored the pleas from the men she treasured to pay them their back wages. She knew they were starving. The letters telling her, and comments written on these letters by both Burghley (her first Secretary - or Prime Minister) and Elizabeth, are among the documents which can be seen in the Archives at Kew Gardens.
Because our national archives were destroyed in the 20s, it is assumed that there is no evidence - on the contrary, although the loss was enormous, there is still a lot of sources out there - one just has to ferret them out.
If it is history - there has to be supporting evidence - otherwise it is just opinion.
I think (IMHO ) that we have plenty of forums on boards for the expression of personal opinions and it is not to much to ask in the history forum that people provide the source of their statements - basically - 'where did you read that?'. This allows for debate and discussion ('ah - you read that there, but did you read this letter written by the same person but to someone else where he says something completely different?', or 'according to General Big Mickie this was a decisive victory, but when we look at the casualty lists, despatches from the front etc it seems as if any ground gained was held for only 1/2 hour and the 1st Battalion of the Over the Toppers suffered 90% fatalities'.)
Unless people are prepared to provide the evidence for their statements, AND the Mods insist on them doing so if they are challenged to, it is all to easy for discussions to descend into polemic, rhetoric and knee jerk reactionary insult flinging. Sure, in that case we may as well be in AH.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jQy_ppY2bI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZIxQyhgqqk
Advertisement