- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When will the history books be rewritten?
Posted on 7/1/20 at 3:52 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
Posted on 7/1/20 at 3:52 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
quote:
it takes someone who can contextualize those primary sources to produce a secondary/tertiary source. not everyone can do archaeology, read linear b, or negotiate a special collections library
I think we are entering into an age where we will need teams of researchers to integrate multiple disciplines, as the overlaps between things like history, anthropology, linguistics, archeology and population genetics, among other fields, gives us an opportunity to understand the context of time periods in a new way. I know that groups are approaching it that way now, but lots of older papers I'm accessing are very technical and time-consuming.
quote:
that said, historians do tend to fetishize the primary source without acknowledging that the process of preserving a document or an archive or artifact is highly mediated. but then again most historians aren't too self reflective about what they do ?
Do you think the introduction of someone like David Carr's work on phenomenology and history would help with this? I know Carr and Hayden White's work was somewhat at odds, but I don't know how popular White is in graduate training. I do think Paul Cohen's book, History in Three Keys, tried to work more Carr into historical analysis.
2
Posted on 7/1/20 at 3:54 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
think we are entering into an age where we will need teams of researchers to integrate multiple disciplines, as the overlaps between things like history, anthropology, linguistics, archeology and population genetics, among other fields, gives us an opportunity to understand the context of time periods in a new way.
Too bad everything is now filtered through a sociological perspective, and emotions rule reason.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 3:58 pm to HempHead
quote:
You must have an insane energy level to be doing medical school and still have even the most remote amount of time to give a frick about this.
I have a pretty set schedule, which helps. No more than 6 hours of sleep, 4 hours of work in the morning, 4 hours mid-afternoon and 2 hours of review at night, with breaks built-in to screw around, and long walks with my dog in the morning and evening to help unwind. I used to read 150 pages a night before bed, but I've had to reduce that to 50-75. My diet has gotten really bad though, so I need to fix that. But being disciplined and breaking everything into small blocks helps a ton.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 4:38 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
I think we are entering into an age where we will need teams of researchers to integrate multiple disciplines, as the overlaps between things like history, anthropology, linguistics, archeology and population genetics, among other fields, gives us an opportunity to understand the context of time periods in a new way. I know that groups are approaching it that way now, but lots of older papers I'm accessing are very technical and time-consuming.
i think even if we achieved that kind of "consilience" we would still need specialists to contribute to each constituent field. not every scholar wants to or can be a hedgehog rather than a fox.
quote:
Do you think the introduction of someone like David Carr's work on phenomenology and history would help with this? I know Carr and Hayden White's work was somewhat at odds, but I don't know how popular White is in graduate training. I do think Paul Cohen's book, History in Three Keys, tried to work more Carr into historical analysis.
everybody reads white's metahistory and tropics of discourse in grad school, but i don't think too many practicing historians give him and his ideas a second thought.
we come out of the historiography seminar with grand plans to write history in three keys or mason and dixon or the return of martin guerre but as the dissertation/book prospectus deadlines get closer we revert to traditional practice
This post was edited on 7/1/20 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 7/1/20 at 4:38 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
History is now one big wikipedia. Everyone has editing ability
Posted on 7/1/20 at 4:40 pm to NATidefan
You mean like people saying the civil war was about slavery and not states rights?
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News