Why do historians keep pretending that 'both sides' involves parties with equal amounts of power? Left and right, colonizer and colonized, establishment and non-establishment? It's facile but I suppose it helps the discipline's faux agnosticism which underpins faux objectivity.
-
-
okay I would disagree with this, in that it isn’t a requirement for everyone. Lots of us write in ways that acknowledge and probe our subjectivities, and critique the idea of objectivity or objective historical knowledge. EH Carr did, in the 1960s!
-
I am talking of the mainstream of the discipline, & what even some critically minded historians do. Those of you who don't do that are not, thank goodness, in the mainstream of history. Until it changes.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I thought that was what International Relations was all about
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.