History is about evidence (which makes one question why this document lacks a bibliography or notes), but it is also about selection & interpretation. Two historians, working in good faith, may look at the same body of evidence &, because they look from a different angle... 2/6
-
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
...or at a different part, come up with different, but equally valid conclusions. Consequently, I think there is good and valuable history to be written by people whose views and values differ greatly from mine. I want to welcome those people into the discipline. 3/6
Näytä tämä ketju -
And it is a *discipline,* history. Doing it makes demands on you to work with rigor, to work within a tradition of knowledge where evidence is painstakingly assembled and laid out by principles mostly proved and only occasionally experimental to support arguments. 4/6
Näytä tämä ketju -
But this '1776 Report' isn't that. There is no rigor here, no painstaking practice of a difficult discipline that demands careful adherence to evidence carefully documented and open admission of uncertainty or controversy. 5/6
Näytä tämä ketju -
I hope everyone will pardon my frankness, but this report as I read it doesn't rise to being 'bad history' because it isn't history at all. And that makes me sad, because no doubt the embarrassment of this thing will poison the well for other historical perspectives. end/6
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Time better spent watching "Hamilton". 1776? Hardly. That's merely when document signed - one moment in a long process of immigrants (not always voluntary nor free on arrival) & customs & war technology above that of aboriginals, bathed in religion & new ideas of government.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.