Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 23:29:17 GMT -6
Hello,
In this and future months History Today asks historians writing in particular areas how they define their subject. What is History?', 'The Practice of History', 'The Death of the Past; 'The New History', 'Clothing Clio', 'The Bitch Goddess', 'The Historian's Craft'. Historians are preoccupied with the method of their art, with the dimensions of their science. And over past decades these questions have gained prefixes. Economic history, social history, more recently labour history, women's history, black history. When once the label is stuck on, categories form in the vacuum; political history, religious history, diplomatic history, intellectual history. But how useful are these distinctions? How do historians describe their sub-disciplines? Are they merely of necessity taking out an area for study and teaching, further fragmenting the past? Or does this concentration on a particular area or a particular approach provide new insights often culled from other disciplines?
|
|
|
Post by red14 on Apr 21, 2020 18:11:14 GMT -6
Today's Media keeps talking about how the 'china-virus' is our history. Some saying it's our WWII, which I think is horse crap. Sitting in my living room is not akin to storming the beach at Normandy, or dodging Kamikazes at Okinawa!
|
|
|
Post by piney on Apr 22, 2020 4:58:12 GMT -6
What channel was that on?
|
|
|
Post by red14 on Apr 23, 2020 14:17:34 GMT -6
What channel was that on? I can't remember, there were several shown on Fox news.
|
|