Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
You can see the dear little thing is bleeding through his warm blanket 😢
Fuck it. What matters is English law property rights.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Perhaps one of my favourite quotes of all time. The whole play is brilliant but that passage particularly is not only brilliant but hugely important.
Th joke being, that in real life, Moore was perfectly OK with bending/breaking the law to get at heretics...
IIRC at his trial he objected to some evidence being, effectively, hearsay. It was pointed out to him that the precedent was a trial where he had introduced such evidence, himself.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Just try doing a PhD - or indeed writing any history - without reading the existing literature. By definition a PhD has to be original work, showing a decent range of research and analytical skills.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Am I the only PBer to have had nostalgia for 1993 yesterday ?
Shane Warne and Merv Hughes, the Maastricht treaty and references to this new thing called the internet - some weird guys in California were already using it as a way of ordering pizza as I remember.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Just try doing a PhD - or indeed writing any history - without reading the existing literature. By definition a PhD has to be original work, showing a decent range of research and analytical skills.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Try doing it without going into a single archive and studying the records. If you don't then you have written a work of literature, not a work of history.
As long as you footnote all the material in all the records you looked at then by definition it cannot be plagiarism whatever conclusions you drew from it
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Depends what you think all this learning is for.
If it's main role is to be an increasingly fine-meshed filter to select people for elite graduate jobs, than who cares about fun, intellectual challenge or anything really?
Who is the last Swiss prime minister you can name? I can't name a single Swiss prime minister, ever. Do they even have prime ministers? Yet, given its location and resources, it is arguably the best governed nation on the planet, taken as a whole, in the last century
You're absolutely correct and absolutely incorrect. Typical "Leon"
The Swiss don't do Prime Ministers.
It has a President of the Confederation
Point stands - how many Presidents of the Confederation can anybody name?
Same with the Moderators of the Kirk of Scotland. So much superior to the Erastian C of E. But nobody can remember the Moderator, for thje same reason.
I always liked the title of Moderator. The implication that if he is not there, the whole thing explodes violently seems... just about correct, historically.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Just try doing a PhD - or indeed writing any history - without reading the existing literature. By definition a PhD has to be original work, showing a decent range of research and analytical skills.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Try doing it without going into a single archive and studying the records. If you don't then you have written a work of literature, not a work of history.
As long as you footnote all the material in all the records you looked at then by definition it cannot be plagiarism whatever conclusions you drew from it
You never do bother to read what people say. I said if one spent the three years of a PhD doing nothing but archival work.
And footnoting archival sources doesn't work as a defence against plagiarism. Think about it.
Who is the last Swiss prime minister you can name? I can't name a single Swiss prime minister, ever. Do they even have prime ministers? Yet, given its location and resources, it is arguably the best governed nation on the planet, taken as a whole, in the last century
You're absolutely correct and absolutely incorrect. Typical "Leon"
The Swiss don't do Prime Ministers.
It has a President of the Confederation
Point stands - how many Presidents of the Confederation can anybody name?
Given that the post rotates once a year, and is purely titular to give foreign ambassadors someone to present their credentials to, it’s hardly a surprise.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Depends what you think all this learning is for.
If it's main role is to be an increasingly fine-meshed filter to select people for elite graduate jobs, than who cares about fun, intellectual challenge or anything really?
No, it's a crude filter to ensure that only Tories' children get the nice jobs.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I once employed a university graduate in my business and he was so thick and stupid he lasted 14 days
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Facts like "W. Churchill was a noble hero" and "History is a glorious progress from the Henrician Settlement to the Prorogation of Parliament by B. Johnson"?
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Just try doing a PhD - or indeed writing any history - without reading the existing literature. By definition a PhD has to be original work, showing a decent range of research and analytical skills.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Try doing it without going into a single archive and studying the records. If you don't then you have written a work of literature, not a work of history.
As long as you footnote all the material in all the records you looked at then by definition it cannot be plagiarism whatever conclusions you drew from it
You never do bother to read what people say. I said if one spent the three years of a PhD doing nothing but archival work.
And footnoting archival sources doesn't work as a defence against plagiarism. Think about it.
I did not say you could not read the literature.
Yet if you have only read the literature and not researched in a single archive then by definition you have not written a work of proper academic history
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I never said it was just about facts but without facts it is not history.
You can look at subjectivity in why historians might have written what they did but the core source material as obtained from archives in particular is as indisputable as any scientific fact
No it really isn't. The most common phrase we hear is that history is written by he winners. And whilst that may be a massive generalisation what it does exhibit is that ANY history, ANY documentary account and ANY event is passed down to us through the eyes and ears of others. That means it is interpreted by them, it is altered by them - even if unknowingly - based on their own known and unknown biases, their own socio-economic circumstances and their own life experiences.
This is seen in every major (or minor) event in history where we are lucky enough to have more than one account. The study of history primarily is the study of these conscious and unconscious biases, of trying to get some semblance of objective accuracy from the accounts even though we know it is almost certainly impossible.
Even something as obvious as Hansard - the records of our own Houses of Parliament - which one would think would be a verbatim account of what has been said by our elected representatives, is nothing of the kind. It is changed and interpreted by the recorder and can be changed later at the request of the speaker and the Speaker so it reflects what someone meant to say rather than what they actually said.
There is no objective truth in history even though we might gloss over that and smooth it into a preferred narrative. Everything is shades of grey.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I once employed a university graduate in my business and he was so thick and stupid he lasted 14 days
I suspect you may have ended with the same result
Which while an insult had nothing whatsoever to do with what history is
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Just try doing a PhD - or indeed writing any history - without reading the existing literature. By definition a PhD has to be original work, showing a decent range of research and analytical skills.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Try doing it without going into a single archive and studying the records. If you don't then you have written a work of literature, not a work of history.
As long as you footnote all the material in all the records you looked at then by definition it cannot be plagiarism whatever conclusions you drew from it
You never do bother to read what people say. I said if one spent the three years of a PhD doing nothing but archival work.
And footnoting archival sources doesn't work as a defence against plagiarism. Think about it.
I did not say you could not read the literature.
Yet if you have only read the literature and not researched in a single archive then by definition you have not written a work of proper academic history
"Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history." HYUFD 2022.
That's pretty damning - literature reading is not history. Only archival research is, you said, too.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
This needs to be engraved in stone or something. Maybe we can get a t-shirt.
One of my old colleagues used to say that a month in the lab would save an hour in library. But this was chemistry, and trying reactions for 31 days IS more fun than reading why they won’t work...
That's the kind of attitude that makes you think that working with chlorine trifluoride might be an interesting diversion.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Which facts though? How many people died in the Black Death? How many planes did the British shoot down on August 15th 1940? Did Covid come from a lab or from the wet market? Facts only get you so far, and tbh most of history we just don’t know about. I’ve read that people in past times would regularly wake in the middle of the night, and chat, and do other things, and then go back to sleep. Something we don’t really do now. Is that a fact? I’ve no idea.
"Guys I have reason to believe [Putin] is descending into acute psychosis. He just delivered a word salad speech. “You know what I’m going to say now. Maybe it will sound harsh.. but as you see.. In some of our regions we have stray dogs. They attack people and sometimes these"
He does look and sound totally nonplussed, if not bonkers. Bizarre. And the image of the air hostess looking at him like he's a nutter. Why put that in? It makes him look even madder?
I've had a guess before that his own PR team is quietly undermining him. This adds to that thesis
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I once employed a university graduate in my business and he was so thick and stupid he lasted 14 days
I suspect you may have ended with the same result
Which while an insult had nothing whatsoever to do with what history is
The point I am making is that a university degree does not mean the graduate is able to get along with others and see other points of view
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Which facts though? How many people died in the Black Death? How many planes did the British shoot down on August 15th 1940? Did Covid come from a lab or from the wet market? Facts only get you so far, and tbh most of history we just don’t know about. I’ve read that people in past times would regularly wake in the middle of the night, and chat, and do other things, and then go back to sleep. Something we don’t really do now. Is that a fact? I’ve no idea.
You can find much of that from source material (even where Covid came from if the Chinese allowed it to be researched)
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Just try doing a PhD - or indeed writing any history - without reading the existing literature. By definition a PhD has to be original work, showing a decent range of research and analytical skills.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Try doing it without going into a single archive and studying the records. If you don't then you have written a work of literature, not a work of history.
As long as you footnote all the material in all the records you looked at then by definition it cannot be plagiarism whatever conclusions you drew from it
You never do bother to read what people say. I said if one spent the three years of a PhD doing nothing but archival work.
And footnoting archival sources doesn't work as a defence against plagiarism. Think about it.
I did not say you could not read the literature.
Yet if you have only read the literature and not researched in a single archive then by definition you have not written a work of proper academic history
"Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history." HYUFD 2022.
That's pretty damning - literature reading is not history. Only archival research is, you said, too.
Correct.
Reading literature can add to historical analysis but it does not make it academic history without study of source material too.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
This needs to be engraved in stone or something. Maybe we can get a t-shirt.
One of my old colleagues used to say that a month in the lab would save an hour in library. But this was chemistry, and trying reactions for 31 days IS more fun than reading why they won’t work...
That's the kind of attitude that makes you think that working with chlorine trifluoride might be an interesting diversion.
The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself
Well there are limits. Another colleague did a project that involved HF, sealed inside a container and then heating it to 150 dec C. Not a project I would have wanted. Pretty much every chemist I know has a limit of reagents they will work with.
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Just try doing a PhD - or indeed writing any history - without reading the existing literature. By definition a PhD has to be original work, showing a decent range of research and analytical skills.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Try doing it without going into a single archive and studying the records. If you don't then you have written a work of literature, not a work of history.
As long as you footnote all the material in all the records you looked at then by definition it cannot be plagiarism whatever conclusions you drew from it
You never do bother to read what people say. I said if one spent the three years of a PhD doing nothing but archival work.
And footnoting archival sources doesn't work as a defence against plagiarism. Think about it.
I did not say you could not read the literature.
Yet if you have only read the literature and not researched in a single archive then by definition you have not written a work of proper academic history
"Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history." HYUFD 2022.
That's pretty damning - literature reading is not history. Only archival research is, you said, too.
Correct.
Reading literature can add to historical analysis but it does not make it academic history without study of source material too.
You said it wasn't history full stop. You're changing and moving your statements again. You'd be a bloody awful historical source.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
I’ve always thought you were a very confident person.😀
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
This needs to be engraved in stone or something. Maybe we can get a t-shirt.
One of my old colleagues used to say that a month in the lab would save an hour in library. But this was chemistry, and trying reactions for 31 days IS more fun than reading why they won’t work...
That's the kind of attitude that makes you think that working with chlorine trifluoride might be an interesting diversion.
EDIT: Alex G. Streng was an experimental chemist, notable for his work with fluorine compounds.[1][2] His work on the synthesis and properties of dioxygen difluoride, published in 1963 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, is notorious for Streng's willingness to push the limits of experimental endeavour with this highly reactive and dangerous material.[1][3][4]
He was married to Lucia V. Streng, who was also known for her work with fluorine compounds
Imagine having those 2 living next door.... We are talking of a man who though adding tetrafluorohydrazine to FOOF was.... not violently insane?
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
You either exclusively studied modern history or you were a terrible student. We don't have a magic TV where we can see the past as it actually happened. All we can do is look at the sources and form a rational and defensible opinion. You can have two books which have entirely different views of a subject and both could still be good history. Facts belong in encyclopaedia, they don't give us insight into how things were.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Which facts though? How many people died in the Black Death? How many planes did the British shoot down on August 15th 1940? Did Covid come from a lab or from the wet market? Facts only get you so far, and tbh most of history we just don’t know about. I’ve read that people in past times would regularly wake in the middle of the night, and chat, and do other things, and then go back to sleep. Something we don’t really do now. Is that a fact? I’ve no idea.
That the average medieval peasant worked about 4 hours a day? There is no source material for that. It has been inferred from experimentation and extrapolation. And is also heavily disputed. Is that a fact or not? And if it isn't, then what was the actual factual working time? We simply don't know. Would allow you time to wake up in the middle of the night and have a natter and stuff, mind.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
You either exclusively studied modern history or you were a terrible student. We don't have a magic TV where we can see the past as it actually happened. All we can do is look at the sources and form a rational and defensible opinion. You can have two books which have entirely different views of a subject and both could still be good history. Facts belong in encyclopaedia, they don't give us insight into how things were.
No I studied English civil war history, 16th century history too.
In your third sentence you said we must look at the sources.
Thank you. That is what distinguishes history from mere literature. The latter requires no study of archival source material at all
First. Someone at the gathering reckoned laying Melenchon is a safe bet.
That's the great thing about betting - it is all based on punters having different views.
Like History, except apparently in the minds of certain Tory supporters.
You are entitled to your own views, not your own facts. History at its best is empirical and factual above all
The irony of that post, Hyufd, is that my view is based on the facts, and yours is based on your political opinions.
No, your view is based on your opinions. Too many history departments have been infected with Marxist interpretations of history since the 1960s rather than traditional empirical fact based history.
If this Conservative government is doing conservative things in education all to the good, that is what it won a majority for in 2019. If you want to change things you will need to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019
"Empirical fact based history" if it means anything would have to mean that the past is taught without reference to values, concepts of better and worse, right and wrong, and taught from no particular point of view in idea, time or place.
The problem with Marxism (I am a conservative about education) is not that it is interpretative but that it is too narrow and distorts the past by over imposing a theory about what it has to mean.
Marxism is just one way of many of analysing past events. It's easy to do if you know it well enough. My old roommate's parents were a Stalinist and a Trot. (They divorced, natch). But he'd heard the theories from so young that he was able to learn historical facts and interpret them all through competing Marxist lenses. Without being a believer in the slightest. He got a first. In the days when precious few did. Does the Whig view of history hit the bin, too?
If we teach Religious education in schools as though Christianity , islam hindu etc has some validity to it to be given the status of being taught in school (when its clearly not true) then i cannot see why more humanistic forms of thinking like marxism ,anarchism and capitalism cannot be taught as well. To any logical person they all make more sense than believing in a vindictive man in the sky
You don't teach Theology in History either.
I did not say you do not teach Marxism at all but if it is taught it should be in A Level Politics and Philosophy not History.
Same as the place to teach Christianity, Islam and Hindu is primarily in Religious Studies not History
Good luck teaching the Tudor period without teaching theology.
My A level was in British and European history 1870 to 1945. How do you teach that without Marxism and Nazism playing a central role?
Fairly easily. Most of it pre 1918 was about Great Power rivalry.
You can study the causes of the Russian revolution without spending weeks on Marxism and Das Kapital either and you can also teach the Weimar Republic and WW2 without spending weeks on Nazi theories and Mein Kampf as well
Well, you can, but it would be a superficial treatment of the subject in both cases.
You don't need an in depth study unless doing it at degree level, or at most A level. Just an overview of the key facts
Why not? History is about more than key facts. It's also about trying to make sense of what people thought, why they thought that, and how those thoughts motivated them.
You see, you could argue that is a key fact in itself.
At degree level (or at least, degree level in an academically rigorous uni) it's much more about how people have tried to make sense of the past.
Not for my degree it wasn't, that was only a minor part of it
That's why I put the caveat in.
It generally isn't at most of the most academic universities, they are taught by leading researchers for whom in depth study of the facts is the key on which analysis is built. Theory comes from the facts not before the facts
It really isn't, but I realise you might not know that having been at Warwick. Not that you would accept it if you did, having stated it the other way to start.
How are academics trained? A PhD.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review. Only when that is completed are you let loose on other source material.
And that is because it's the most important part of it. Until you know what other views there are, you can't realistically analyse them or material in light of them.
And that is the key to historical practice.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
Source material is the basis of history. Without archival source material it is just literature, not history
Just try doing a PhD - or indeed writing any history - without reading the existing literature. By definition a PhD has to be original work, showing a decent range of research and analytical skills.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Try doing it without going into a single archive and studying the records. If you don't then you have written a work of literature, not a work of history.
As long as you footnote all the material in all the records you looked at then by definition it cannot be plagiarism whatever conclusions you drew from it
You never do bother to read what people say. I said if one spent the three years of a PhD doing nothing but archival work.
And footnoting archival sources doesn't work as a defence against plagiarism. Think about it.
I did not say you could not read the literature.
Yet if you have only read the literature and not researched in a single archive then by definition you have not written a work of proper academic history
"Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history." HYUFD 2022.
That's pretty damning - literature reading is not history. Only archival research is, you said, too.
Correct.
Reading literature can add to historical analysis but it does not make it academic history without study of source material too.
You said it wasn't history full stop. You're changing and moving your statements again. You'd be a bloody awful historical source.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
It is possible Melenchon could get to the runoff if all the leftwing vote largely unites behind him while the rightwing vote remains split between Zemmour, Le Pen and Pecresse.
However Macron would like crush Melenchon in the runoff. The latest poll from Ipsos has Macron trouncing Melenchon 67% to 33% with most Pecresse voters voting for Macron in that scenario.
That is an even bigger margin than the 66% to 34% Macron beats Zemmour by, the 64% to 36% Macron beats Pecresse by and the 59% to 41% Macron beats Le Pen by
There’s actually quite a lot in politics that defies simple left right pebble counting: Nationalism, Green Issue’s. Populism, Brexit. Protecting pensions, lowering pension age, where tax burden falls (particularly in France urban v countryside bits) solidarity taxes.
Rather than simply being left of centre votes and right of centre votes, the fact is Melenchon and Le Pen sit on the opposite side of the table from Macron on type of French nationality, the anti immigration, close the borders to be at home, dislike for Germany and dislike EU policies central to both their campaigns. Last time nearly half of Melenchon’s support didn’t endorse Macron, if you include abstention. This time, after they clearly know what Macron stands for, his policies (particularly protecting pensions) very much their enemy if you remember back to the Yellowjacket campaigns, Melenchon and Le Pen voters could be more interchangeable and tactical anti macron.
I have a pretty “flow” diagram of where votes in the last 1st round went in the second. Remember, this time it’s much clearer to them Macron is their common enemy.
History is a bit like science really. You have data and you use it to come up with a hypothesis. I suppose the difference is that you can never really prove your hypothesis definitively.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Which facts though? How many people died in the Black Death? How many planes did the British shoot down on August 15th 1940? Did Covid come from a lab or from the wet market? Facts only get you so far, and tbh most of history we just don’t know about. I’ve read that people in past times would regularly wake in the middle of the night, and chat, and do other things, and then go back to sleep. Something we don’t really do now. Is that a fact? I’ve no idea.
That the average medieval peasant worked about 4 hours a day? There is no source material for that. It has been inferred from experimentation and extrapolation. And is also heavily disputed. Is that a fact or not? And if it isn't, then what was the actual factual working time? We simply don't know. Would allow you time to wake up in the middle of the night and have a natter and stuff, mind.
Define work? Digging ditches, Minding sheep? Walking the cows to a different pasture?
4 hours 100% on the job, 4 hours of hard labour in a 16 hour day of doing stuff.....
Daily Star reporting exclusive that Putin is dying from bowel cancer.
Never thought that hearing someone has cancer would cheer me up but I was wrong, it seems.
Well, if he is, consider that he may be in the "I Must Save My People At The Small Cost Of Killing All Of Them" mode.
I know, I know.
I am falling back on the hope that there's a chain of command to fire off the Russian nukes and that somewhere in that chain exists some common sense and/or sane people with families they love.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I once employed a university graduate in my business and he was so thick and stupid he lasted 14 days
I suspect you may have ended with the same result
Which while an insult had nothing whatsoever to do with what history is
The point I am making is that a university degree does not mean the graduate is able to get along with others and see other points of view
So what, that still has zero to do with what makes history history or not.
You can be the most autistic or rude or unsocial person in the world and still be a historian if you have studied and analysed archival source material as well as historical works, even you may be hopeless in a business environment
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Which facts though? How many people died in the Black Death? How many planes did the British shoot down on August 15th 1940? Did Covid come from a lab or from the wet market? Facts only get you so far, and tbh most of history we just don’t know about. I’ve read that people in past times would regularly wake in the middle of the night, and chat, and do other things, and then go back to sleep. Something we don’t really do now. Is that a fact? I’ve no idea.
That the average medieval peasant worked about 4 hours a day? There is no source material for that. It has been inferred from experimentation and extrapolation. And is also heavily disputed. Is that a fact or not? And if it isn't, then what was the actual factual working time? We simply don't know. Would allow you time to wake up in the middle of the night and have a natter and stuff, mind.
Define work? Digging ditches, Minding sheep? Walking the cows to a different pasture?
4 hours 100% on the job, 4 hours of hard labour in a 16 hour day of doing stuff.....
4 hours is a long time for anyone to be on the job!
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
The intelligent people who are full of confidence are also well known for their legendary modesty.
Am I the only PBer to have had nostalgia for 1993 yesterday ?
Shane Warne and Merv Hughes, the Maastricht treaty and references to this new thing called the internet - some weird guys in California were already using it as a way of ordering pizza as I remember.
I didn't watch anything on the news but remember it well. One of the few sporting moments where my jaw dropped, the same for my brother and father. The other ones that spring to mind were Roberto Carlos' free kick against France in '97 and Usain Bolt winning the 100m at the 2008 Olympics.
Warne and Hughes were characters but so too the likes of Jack Russell, Devon Malcolm, Beefy Botham and Philip Tufnell. Maybe why it was my favourite sport as a child.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
History is a bit like science really. You have data and you use it to come up with a hypothesis. I suppose the difference is that you can never really prove your hypothesis definitively.
Yes but you still need that data for it to be history
"Guys I have reason to believe [Putin] is descending into acute psychosis. He just delivered a word salad speech. “You know what I’m going to say now. Maybe it will sound harsh.. but as you see.. In some of our regions we have stray dogs. They attack people and sometimes these"
He does look and sound totally nonplussed, if not bonkers. Bizarre. And the image of the air hostess looking at him like he's a nutter. Why put that in? It makes him look even madder?
I've had a guess before that his own PR team is quietly undermining him. This adds to that thesis
The video above that is reminiscent of the mass volunteering at the start of the Great War.
It is possible Melenchon could get to the runoff if all the leftwing vote largely unites behind him while the rightwing vote remains split between Zemmour, Le Pen and Pecresse.
However Macron would like crush Melenchon in the runoff. The latest poll from Ipsos has Macron trouncing Melenchon 67% to 33% with most Pecresse voters voting for Macron in that scenario.
That is an even bigger margin than the 66% to 34% Macron beats Zemmour by, the 64% to 36% Macron beats Pecresse by and the 59% to 41% Macron beats Le Pen by
There’s actually quite a lot in politics that defies simple left right pebble counting: Nationalism, Green Issue’s. Populism, Brexit. Protecting pensions, lowering pension age, where tax burden falls (particularly in France urban v countryside bits) solidarity taxes.
Rather than simply being left of centre votes and right of centre votes, the fact is Melenchon and Le Pen sit on the opposite side of the table from Macron on type of French nationality, the anti immigration, close the borders to be at home, dislike for Germany and dislike EU policies central to both their campaigns. Last time nearly half of Melenchon’s support didn’t endorse Macron, if you include abstention. This time, after they clearly know what Macron stands for, his policies (particularly protecting pensions) very much their enemy if you remember back to the Yellowjacket campaigns, Melenchon and Le Pen voters could be more interchangeable and tactical anti macron.
I have a pretty “flow” diagram of where votes in the last 1st round went in the second. Remember, this time it’s much clearer to them Macron is their common enemy.
I love Sankey diagrams. Spam as many into my reports as possible.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
You either exclusively studied modern history or you were a terrible student. We don't have a magic TV where we can see the past as it actually happened. All we can do is look at the sources and form a rational and defensible opinion. You can have two books which have entirely different views of a subject and both could still be good history. Facts belong in encyclopaedia, they don't give us insight into how things were.
No I studied English civil war history, 16th century history too.
In your third sentence you said we must look at the sources.
Thank you. That is what distinguishes history from mere literature. The latter requires no study of archival source material at all
But sources tell you different things. If you didn't prioritise some sources over others then you'd never write anything coherent. That's called judgement and it's the basis of history. You're entitled to disagree with someone's judgement but you can't say it's illegitimate.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
To get to the top of any business or politics you have to have some confidence, yes you need some intelligence too but confidence is an absolute requirement for almost any form of management or leadership
I notice that tank is carrying logs (tree trunks really) on its side too, which supports the idea that they are being carried to get through mud. It's certainly not carrying them to protect the radiator from rifle fire.
I thought the whole idea of a tank was that it could cope with any amount of mud though?
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Next government may prefer to teach its own facts. What goes around comes around.
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
This needs to be engraved in stone or something. Maybe we can get a t-shirt.
One of my old colleagues used to say that a month in the lab would save an hour in library. But this was chemistry, and trying reactions for 31 days IS more fun than reading why they won’t work...
That's the kind of attitude that makes you think that working with chlorine trifluoride might be an interesting diversion.
EDIT: Alex G. Streng was an experimental chemist, notable for his work with fluorine compounds.[1][2] His work on the synthesis and properties of dioxygen difluoride, published in 1963 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, is notorious for Streng's willingness to push the limits of experimental endeavour with this highly reactive and dangerous material.[1][3][4]
He was married to Lucia V. Streng, who was also known for her work with fluorine compounds
Imagine having those 2 living next door.... We are talking of a man who though adding tetrafluorohydrazine to FOOF was.... not violently insane?
I liked the bit about chlorine producing a violent explosion, so he added it more slowly the second time...
"This week in the Commons a Tory MP named and shamed the British lawyers he said earned fortunes helping silence critics of Putin's cronies. Now read the investigation into their activities they'd prefer you weren't able to read"
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I once employed a university graduate in my business and he was so thick and stupid he lasted 14 days
I suspect you may have ended with the same result
Which while an insult had nothing whatsoever to do with what history is
The point I am making is that a university degree does not mean the graduate is able to get along with others and see other points of view
So what, that still has zero to do with what makes history history or not.
You can be the most autistic or rude or unsocial person in the world and still be a historian if you have studied and analysed archival source material as well as historical works, even you may be hopeless in a business environment
Problem is, I don't think you're able to get along with other OR have the first clue what history is.
Your contributions to this discussion are giving me powerful fremdschämen.
And that's the political dimension to source based history. We simply don't have sources for how your ordinary peasant/labourer/woman lived their lives. It wasn't considered important. So we can't learn about it. Ironically, some of the only sources are from the much despised literature. That's the fiction stuff. Chaucer writes about ordinary medieval professions. It's why we didn't know the Latin for underwear till the Vindolanda discoveries. Despite it being in everyday use. Unlike many of the terms in Marcus Aurelius or Cicero. See also words and phrases Shakespeare "invented". More likely he was the first to write them down, or at least have them survive. History is about more than the lives of Royals and aristocrats. Which probably makes me a Marxist...
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
I doubt if it affects the great scheme of things what the BBC shows, but in principle I think it's a pity that they have weighed in so completely on one side in the news coverage - no attempt that I've seen to interview anyone Russian except for dissidents, no indication of what Putin supporters are saying or whether they're having doubts. I'm fine with pro-Ukraine commentaries which reflect what most of us feel but I'd like to have the facts presented neutrally for information in he-said-she-said style first. For example, both sides are claiming to have shot down a bunch of aircraft, but we're only hearing the Ukrainian claim (my source for the other is Interfax, which I think is Russian owned). That makes it harder to work out what's actually happening.
The BBC used to be famous for neutral(ish) reporting, even giving the Argentinians a polite hearing during the Falklands when we were involved in the war ourselves. It's a reputation that's worth preserving even in these difficult times.
Given the law passed in Russia and the BBC are GTFO of the country, I’m not sure Russia deserves a fair hearing from the BBC.
It's not Russia that deserves informative, accurate coverage (and they certainly don't get it). It's US. If the BBC only tells us what we want to hear, then we risk making decisions on that basis.
In the same way, I don't want the Guardian only to tell me the Tories are in trouble and Trump is a monster who nobody will vote for - if they're doing well, I'd like to know. Otherwise it gets a bit like the people who only get their information from sources on Twitter who think like them, and then get astonished that elections turn out differently.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
To get to the top of any business or politics you have to have some confidence, yes you need some intelligence too but confidence is an absolute requirement for almost any form of management or leadership
As I got to the top of my business then I must meet with your approval
Last night, an alleged FSB whistle-blower letter was published that damned Russia's military performance in Ukraine and predicted a disaster for the RU in the next weeks and months. I wasn't sure if it was authentic - as Ukraine had previously leaked fake FSB letters as psy-ops. This letter appeared different though: it came via a reputable source (founder of http://gulagu.net), and it was way longer than a forger would choose to make it (the longer the text, the more risk of making an error). I showed the letter to two actual (current or former) FSB contacts, and they had no doubt it was written by a colleague. They didn't agree with all of his conclusions, but that's a different story. Here's the text, worth reading: https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.osechkin/posts/4811633942268327
www.deepl.com will be your friend to translate, but tl;dr:
Famine assessed to be extremely likely, FSB did not know about the war. FSB reportedly leaked the location of the Chechens to Ukraine, so they got torn apart, Kadyrov not happy. Medvedchuk is a coward, he ran away On casualties: I don't know how many. Nobody knows. Definitely the death toll is in the thousands. Maybe 10 thousand, maybe 5, maybe only 2. Even the headquarters do not know exactly. But it should be closer to 10. Now even if we kill Zelensky and take him prisoner, nothing will change. The level of hatred towards us is Chechnya there. And now even those who were loyal to us are against it. We have a conditional deadline of June. Conditional - because in June we have no economy, nothing left. There is simply no way of winning, and if we lose, we're screwed. We 100% repeated the beginning of the last century, when we decided to kick weak Japan and get a quick victory, then it turned out that the army was a disaster. Donbas was set up to try and draw western ire away from the Crimean annexation, but now this has re-opened that. Somebody will convince him, either they lower the sanctions or go to war. And if they refuse? Now I don't rule out that then we will get into a real international conflict like Hitler did in 1939.
Nukes:
Naryshkin are now digging the ground to prove that they have secretly built nuclear weapons there. Kadyrov is angry for a reason. He has created an image of himself as the most powerful and invincible. And if he falls once, he will be brought down by his own people.
I would only add that I do not believe that VV Putin will press the red button to destroy the whole world. First of all there is not only one person who makes a decision, at least somebody will jump out. And there are many people there - there is no "sole red button". Secondly, there are some doubts that everything is functioning successfully there. There are always bravura reports - things are always wrong there.
Fascinating, hard to tell if real, but it could be, the bit about turkey shutting the striates meaning everything's has to be flown out and is as expensive as 'barning money to heat your over' is a point I had not heard before. but a good observation and another headache for people working in Putin's HQ
It is possible Melenchon could get to the runoff if all the leftwing vote largely unites behind him while the rightwing vote remains split between Zemmour, Le Pen and Pecresse.
However Macron would like crush Melenchon in the runoff. The latest poll from Ipsos has Macron trouncing Melenchon 67% to 33% with most Pecresse voters voting for Macron in that scenario.
That is an even bigger margin than the 66% to 34% Macron beats Zemmour by, the 64% to 36% Macron beats Pecresse by and the 59% to 41% Macron beats Le Pen by
There’s actually quite a lot in politics that defies simple left right pebble counting: Nationalism, Green Issue’s. Populism, Brexit. Protecting pensions, lowering pension age, where tax burden falls (particularly in France urban v countryside bits) solidarity taxes.
Rather than simply being left of centre votes and right of centre votes, the fact is Melenchon and Le Pen sit on the opposite side of the table from Macron on type of French nationality, the anti immigration, close the borders to be at home, dislike for Germany and dislike EU policies central to both their campaigns. Last time nearly half of Melenchon’s support didn’t endorse Macron, if you include abstention. This time, after they clearly know what Macron stands for, his policies (particularly protecting pensions) very much their enemy if you remember back to the Yellowjacket campaigns, Melenchon and Le Pen voters could be more interchangeable and tactical anti macron.
I have a pretty “flow” diagram of where votes in the last 1st round went in the second. Remember, this time it’s much clearer to them Macron is their common enemy.
Thanks MR.
Yes I would agree with you Melenchon and Le Pen voters are more interchangeable now than 2017 if either makes the runoff but not both, much as Macron and Pecresse voters are interchangeable and Macron and Hidalgo voters are interchangeable and to an extent Zemmour and Le Pen voters are interchangeable as well
Daily Star reporting exclusive that Putin is dying from bowel cancer.
Never thought that hearing someone has cancer would cheer me up but I was wrong, it seems.
Well, if he is, consider that he may be in the "I Must Save My People At The Small Cost Of Killing All Of Them" mode.
I know, I know.
I am falling back on the hope that there's a chain of command to fire off the Russian nukes and that somewhere in that chain exists some common sense and/or sane people with families they love.
I am just hoping that there is someone who has my sense of humour.
"Get close to messianic leaders who are trying to change the world. Follow them, understand them. And remember to use the Mozambique Drill".
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
For all those who bang on about Putin will get ousted or even get refused when ordering a nuclear attack , just think if that would happen on the Uk side - If Boris ordered a nuclear strike it woudl be obeyed (in fact who knows if he has already in the standing orders in the subs) . People need to get real and realise the world is at a brink and needs to deescalate this not inflame anymore, The BBC showing footage of downing Russian helicoptors is not helping
Why do you want to censor our media and play into Putin hands
We have to stand strong with Ukraine and all NATO states and not role over to a war criminal
I am very pleased with the measures the UK - EU - US - NATO are taking and it is time we came in behind them all
Each has had an important input to this crisis and I hope that finally this will bring us all together in unity
It is also time to stop UK - good EU - bad and vice versa as it is simply divisive and plays into Putin's agenda
well I fundamentally disagree- Please get it into your heads (those that want to pursue this war) that you can not always win or good will always win. This is a situation where if Russia loses the world is on the brink - It needs (and Putin because he will not get toppled) a face saver . one can be done ,always one can be done but you have to try. All wars end at some point , the earlier the better especially in this case for EVERYONE
You do not win by rolling over to a bully
He has to be challenged and made to realise he cannot succeed in his war and the crimes he is committing
Russia cannot win this and the best hope is for an internal coup
Appeasement does not work
soundbite stuff and not the real reality of a nuclear filled Russia
According to you, the real reality of nuclear filled Russia is letting them invade any neighbor and commit whatever war crimes they like.
Did you get all gung-ho when Saudi arabia bombed Yemen ? Or the genocide in Rwanda or even when Russia invaded Georgia or sided with Assat in Syria? The suffering is the same in those places yet we seem to have built up this bellicose nature that is really taking it to the edge with Ukraine - Time to back off now and start coming down the other side of the mountain before its all gone - everything .
Some of the internet is bellicose but so far the Western response has been controlled and risk aware.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
You either exclusively studied modern history or you were a terrible student. We don't have a magic TV where we can see the past as it actually happened. All we can do is look at the sources and form a rational and defensible opinion. You can have two books which have entirely different views of a subject and both could still be good history. Facts belong in encyclopaedia, they don't give us insight into how things were.
No I studied English civil war history, 16th century history too.
In your third sentence you said we must look at the sources.
Thank you. That is what distinguishes history from mere literature. The latter requires no study of archival source material at all
But sources tell you different things. If you didn't prioritise some sources over others then you'd never write anything coherent. That's called judgement and it's the basis of history. You're entitled to disagree with someone's judgement but you can't say it's illegitimate.
Yes but footnotes mean historians can clearly state your work was less objective if you ignored half the main sources on it. However as long as it still used some source material it is still history not literature
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
History is a bit like science really. You have data and you use it to come up with a hypothesis. I suppose the difference is that you can never really prove your hypothesis definitively.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Which facts though? How many people died in the Black Death? How many planes did the British shoot down on August 15th 1940? Did Covid come from a lab or from the wet market? Facts only get you so far, and tbh most of history we just don’t know about. I’ve read that people in past times would regularly wake in the middle of the night, and chat, and do other things, and then go back to sleep. Something we don’t really do now. Is that a fact? I’ve no idea.
That the average medieval peasant worked about 4 hours a day? There is no source material for that. It has been inferred from experimentation and extrapolation. And is also heavily disputed. Is that a fact or not? And if it isn't, then what was the actual factual working time? We simply don't know. Would allow you time to wake up in the middle of the night and have a natter and stuff, mind.
Define work? Digging ditches, Minding sheep? Walking the cows to a different pasture?
4 hours 100% on the job, 4 hours of hard labour in a 16 hour day of doing stuff.....
Well yes. Much of this falls into the modern housework is work category.
Daily Star reporting exclusive that Putin is dying from bowel cancer.
Only problem is, people have been saying this sort of thing for several years now.
Then we might be closer to the end than we hope.
On a different note, one of the RuAF Majors they caught today is the same one who was in a photo with Assad, Putin, and Shoigu in Syria. Given the amount of war crime investigative work already done on the RuAF in Syria, it looks like we have our first destined for the Hague.
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
Thank goodness for that. I'm out of this now. It is scary that there are probably quite a few in the Cabinet who think it is simply a series of approved facts. To be rote learned by all. Who'd want to study that for a start? No fun and zero intellectual challenge.
Conservatives correctly mostly believe history is based on facts.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
Which facts though? How many people died in the Black Death? How many planes did the British shoot down on August 15th 1940? Did Covid come from a lab or from the wet market? Facts only get you so far, and tbh most of history we just don’t know about. I’ve read that people in past times would regularly wake in the middle of the night, and chat, and do other things, and then go back to sleep. Something we don’t really do now. Is that a fact? I’ve no idea.
That the average medieval peasant worked about 4 hours a day? There is no source material for that. It has been inferred from experimentation and extrapolation. And is also heavily disputed. Is that a fact or not? And if it isn't, then what was the actual factual working time? We simply don't know. Would allow you time to wake up in the middle of the night and have a natter and stuff, mind.
I suspect 4 hours a day is averaging some quiet seasons with some very busy seasons. Certainly lots of subsidence farmers in Malawi spend a lot of time sitting under a tree watching their maize grow.
I think the sleep thing is true, the evidence is discussed here:
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
I got a B in Higher History and I think you're wrong.
Let that be an end to the matter.
I got an A in A Level History and I think I am right. So that is certainly not the end of the matter
I raise you a 1 in Standard Grade History. Beat that!
I got an A* in GCSE too, so overall I still got higher grades in history at school than you did
I studied History of Economic Thought, British Social History and Economic History at a proper Scottish University.
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
I studied history at a proper Russell Group university too
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
To get to the top of any business or politics you have to have some confidence, yes you need some intelligence too but confidence is an absolute requirement for almost any form of management or leadership
As I got to the top of my business then I must meet with your approval
And without a university education
Well done, you are clearly a great businessman BigG.
“The US is working with Warsaw to help provide Ukraine with Polish fighter jets as part of a deal in which the Pentagon would give Poland F-16s in exchange…White House said it was negotiating with Poland on a deal and consulting with other Nato allies”
Am I banging my head against a brick wall here? Everyone else has fled the battlefield.
Sorry Dixie. You are so completely in the right and HYUFD is so completely unwilling to accept he is wrong - ever - that it seems pointless to make any other comment.
History is never just about 'facts' or 'events'. It is always about how they were recorded and by whom, why they were recorded and how we interpret them based upon their causes and their effects (as well as the observer bias we ourselves exhibit). To try and separate the reasons for events and their effects from the actual event itself is pointless as it renders the event meaningless.
I did not go to university but in my 78 years I have experienced a wealth of knowledge and to be honest even I can see @HYUFD is all over the place yet again
Well I did go to university and I did study history so on this subject at least I will favour my opinion over yours
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
To get to the top of any business or politics you have to have some confidence, yes you need some intelligence too but confidence is an absolute requirement for almost any form of management or leadership
As I got to the top of my business then I must meet with your approval
And without a university education
Well done, you are clearly a great businessman BigG.
Still does not make you a great historian however
I never claimed I was but even if I had an interest tonight's nonsense would have done little to encourage me
Who is the last Swiss prime minister you can name? I can't name a single Swiss prime minister, ever. Do they even have prime ministers? Yet, given its location and resources, it is arguably the best governed nation on the planet, taken as a whole, in the last century
You're absolutely correct and absolutely incorrect. Typical "Leon"
The Swiss don't do Prime Ministers.
It has a President of the Confederation
Point stands - how many Presidents of the Confederation can anybody name?
Same with the Moderators of the Kirk of Scotland. So much superior to the Erastian C of E. But nobody can remember the Moderator, for thje same reason.
I always liked the title of Moderator. The implication that if he is not there, the whole thing explodes violently seems... just about correct, historically.
Quite the opposite: no moderator and the whole thing grinds to a halt.
“The US is working with Warsaw to help provide Ukraine with Polish fighter jets as part of a deal in which the Pentagon would give Poland F-16s in exchange…White House said it was negotiating with Poland on a deal and consulting with other Nato allies”
We really have to confront this threat otherwise Putin can just do as he likes
Daily Star reporting exclusive that Putin is dying from bowel cancer.
Only problem is, people have been saying this sort of thing for several years now.
Then we might be closer to the end than we hope.
On a different note, one of the RuAF Majors they caught today is the same one who was in a photo with Assad, Putin, and Shoigu in Syria. Given the amount of war crime investigative work already done on the RuAF in Syria, it looks like we have our first destined for the Hague.
Firstly, you probably need to draw the opposite conclusion. The fact that someone was saying in 2018 that Putin had months to live probably means that they were wrong and that it could be more of the same guesswork/malicious rumour mongering. Secondly, Putin will never end up in the Hague. Would that I'm wrong, but it's never going to happen. He deserves it, but that means nothing.
Does russia have a major payment processor outside of mastercard, paypal and visa? If not then ouch, this is beyond the worst case anyone envisaged surely?
What's the bedrock of the History PhD? The literature review.
No it isn't. Reading literature is the heart of English literature not history.
This needs to be engraved in stone or something. Maybe we can get a t-shirt.
One of my old colleagues used to say that a month in the lab would save an hour in library. But this was chemistry, and trying reactions for 31 days IS more fun than reading why they won’t work...
That's the kind of attitude that makes you think that working with chlorine trifluoride might be an interesting diversion.
Who is the last Swiss prime minister you can name? I can't name a single Swiss prime minister, ever. Do they even have prime ministers? Yet, given its location and resources, it is arguably the best governed nation on the planet, taken as a whole, in the last century
You're absolutely correct and absolutely incorrect. Typical "Leon"
The Swiss don't do Prime Ministers.
It has a President of the Confederation
Point stands - how many Presidents of the Confederation can anybody name?
Same with the Moderators of the Kirk of Scotland. So much superior to the Erastian C of E. But nobody can remember the Moderator, for thje same reason.
I always liked the title of Moderator. The implication that if he is not there, the whole thing explodes violently seems... just about correct, historically.
Quite the opposite: no moderator and the whole thing grinds to a halt.
Daily Star reporting exclusive that Putin is dying from bowel cancer.
Only problem is, people have been saying this sort of thing for several years now.
Then we might be closer to the end than we hope.
On a different note, one of the RuAF Majors they caught today is the same one who was in a photo with Assad, Putin, and Shoigu in Syria. Given the amount of war crime investigative work already done on the RuAF in Syria, it looks like we have our first destined for the Hague.
Firstly, you probably need to draw the opposite conclusion. The fact that someone was saying in 2018 that Putin had months to live probably means that they were wrong and that it could be more of the same guesswork/malicious rumour mongering. Secondly, Putin will never end up in the Hague. Would that I'm wrong, but it's never going to happen. He deserves it, but that means nothing.
I think it is highly unlikely
Putin's end will be one of terminal illness, coup from within, assination or suicide
Does russia have a major payment processor outside of mastercard, paypal and visa? If not then ouch, this is beyond the worst case anyone envisaged surely?
With Visa and Mastercard pulling out of Russia it is hard to see how much longer the Russian economy can go on for. The rouble is rapidly becoming worthless, bank runs are happening.
It's a different kind of warfare to the ones that the Russians are practicing in Ukraine, but it's warfare sure enough.
I fear Putin will double down and try something drastic to try to remain in power.
Comments
Even if Les Republicains lose the Presidential election they might still win the legislative election
IIRC at his trial he objected to some evidence being, effectively, hearsay. It was pointed out to him that the precedent was a trial where he had introduced such evidence, himself.
On the crudest level, if you spend 3 years in the archives, ignoring what has been done before, and then submit your conclusions, you'll be ripped to shreds by a decent examiner if you don't explain why you are right and the last person to look at the same archives and had a different opinion is wrong.
It's still worse if you come to the same conclusions - because by definition it's not original work. And then you are laid open to the accusation of plagiarism ...
Shane Warne and Merv Hughes, the Maastricht treaty and references to this new thing called the internet - some weird guys in California were already using it as a way of ordering pizza as I remember.
As long as you footnote all the material in all the records you looked at then by definition it cannot be plagiarism whatever conclusions you drew from it
If it's main role is to be an increasingly fine-meshed filter to select people for elite graduate jobs, than who cares about fun, intellectual challenge or anything really?
And footnoting archival sources doesn't work as a defence against plagiarism. Think about it.
We are in power at the moment with a majority, we will therefore ensure schools teach proper history which is fact based
I suspect you may have ended with the same result
Yet if you have only read the literature and not researched in a single archive then by definition you have not written a work of proper academic history
Keep doubling down on the whole "literature" thing. It gives me my strength.
This is seen in every major (or minor) event in history where we are lucky enough to have more than one account. The study of history primarily is the study of these conscious and unconscious biases, of trying to get some semblance of objective accuracy from the accounts even though we know it is almost certainly impossible.
Even something as obvious as Hansard - the records of our own Houses of Parliament - which one would think would be a verbatim account of what has been said by our elected representatives, is nothing of the kind. It is changed and interpreted by the recorder and can be changed later at the request of the speaker and the Speaker so it reflects what someone meant to say rather than what they actually said.
There is no objective truth in history even though we might gloss over that and smooth it into a preferred narrative. Everything is shades of grey.
Let that be an end to the matter.
That's pretty damning - literature reading is not history. Only archival research is, you said, too.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sand-won-t-save-you-time
The compound also a stronger oxidizing agent than oxygen itself
https://twitter.com/juliaskripkaser/status/1500099611855360000?s=20&t=WLSSBfnpZ9XIm9qTrP6Cpg
"Guys I have reason to believe [Putin] is descending into acute psychosis. He just delivered a word salad speech. “You know what I’m going to say now. Maybe it will sound harsh.. but as you see.. In some of our regions we have stray dogs. They attack people and sometimes these"
He does look and sound totally nonplussed, if not bonkers. Bizarre. And the image of the air hostess looking at him like he's a nutter. Why put that in? It makes him look even madder?
I've had a guess before that his own PR team is quietly undermining him. This adds to that thesis
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1500232483324968970
"British intelligence withdrew assessment that giving peerage to Evgeny Lebedev posed national security risk after Boris Johnson intervened
PM ignored warning about son of ex KGB spy and oligarch, said it was "anti-Russianism""
Reading literature can add to historical analysis but it does not make it academic history without study of source material too.
Pretty much every chemist I know has a limit of reagents they will work with.
Triflouride is just for slackers.......
Then we come to FOOF...
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-work-dioxygen-difluoride
EDIT: Alex G. Streng was an experimental chemist, notable for his work with fluorine compounds.[1][2] His work on the synthesis and properties of dioxygen difluoride, published in 1963 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, is notorious for Streng's willingness to push the limits of experimental endeavour with this highly reactive and dangerous material.[1][3][4]
He was married to Lucia V. Streng, who was also known for her work with fluorine compounds
Imagine having those 2 living next door.... We are talking of a man who though adding tetrafluorohydrazine to FOOF was.... not violently insane?
There is no source material for that. It has been inferred from experimentation and extrapolation. And is also heavily disputed. Is that a fact or not?
And if it isn't, then what was the actual factual working time?
We simply don't know.
Would allow you time to wake up in the middle of the night and have a natter and stuff, mind.
In your third sentence you said we must look at the sources.
Thank you. That is what distinguishes history from mere literature. The latter requires no study of archival source material at all
There’s actually quite a lot in politics that defies simple left right pebble counting: Nationalism, Green Issue’s. Populism, Brexit. Protecting pensions, lowering pension age, where tax burden falls (particularly in France urban v countryside bits) solidarity taxes.
Rather than simply being left of centre votes and right of centre votes, the fact is Melenchon and Le Pen sit on the opposite side of the table from Macron on type of French nationality, the anti immigration, close the borders to be at home, dislike for Germany and dislike EU policies central to both their campaigns. Last time nearly half of Melenchon’s support didn’t endorse Macron, if you include abstention. This time, after they clearly know what Macron stands for, his policies (particularly protecting pensions) very much their enemy if you remember back to the Yellowjacket campaigns, Melenchon and Le Pen voters could be more interchangeable and tactical anti macron.
I have a pretty “flow” diagram of where votes in the last 1st round went in the second. Remember, this time it’s much clearer to them Macron is their common enemy.
4 hours 100% on the job, 4 hours of hard labour in a 16 hour day of doing stuff.....
A couple of lads who chose history ended up taking chemistry O level in the 6th form after realising the error of their ways.
I am falling back on the hope that there's a chain of command to fire off the Russian nukes and that somewhere in that chain exists some common sense and/or sane people with families they love.
https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1500219777498890243
You can be the most autistic or rude or unsocial person in the world and still be a historian if you have studied and analysed archival source material as well as historical works, even you may be hopeless in a business environment
Warne and Hughes were characters but so too the likes of Jack Russell, Devon Malcolm, Beefy Botham and Philip Tufnell. Maybe why it was my favourite sport as a child.
Time to move on
I thought the whole idea of a tank was that it could cope with any amount of mud though?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10579743/Tory-MP-named-British-lawyers-said-earned-fortunes-helping-silence-critics-Putins-cronies.html
Your contributions to this discussion are giving me powerful fremdschämen.
Ironically, some of the only sources are from the much despised literature. That's the fiction stuff. Chaucer writes about ordinary medieval professions.
It's why we didn't know the Latin for underwear till the Vindolanda discoveries. Despite it being in everyday use. Unlike many of the terms in Marcus Aurelius or Cicero.
See also words and phrases Shakespeare "invented". More likely he was the first to write them down, or at least have them survive.
History is about more than the lives of Royals and aristocrats.
Which probably makes me a Marxist...
In the same way, I don't want the Guardian only to tell me the Tories are in trouble and Trump is a monster who nobody will vote for - if they're doing well, I'd like to know. Otherwise it gets a bit like the people who only get their information from sources on Twitter who think like them, and then get astonished that elections turn out differently.
And without a university education
Yes I would agree with you Melenchon and Le Pen voters are more interchangeable now than 2017 if either makes the runoff but not both, much as Macron and Pecresse voters are interchangeable and Macron and Hidalgo voters are interchangeable and to an extent Zemmour and Le Pen voters are interchangeable as well
"Get close to messianic leaders who are trying to change the world. Follow them, understand them. And remember to use the Mozambique Drill".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-3vM32kat4
That's like 3x the History you have. History up to my eyeballs.
On a different note, one of the RuAF Majors they caught today is the same one who was in a photo with Assad, Putin, and Shoigu in Syria. Given the amount of war crime investigative work already done on the RuAF in Syria, it looks like we have our first destined for the Hague.
I think the sleep thing is true, the evidence is discussed here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/medieval-sleeping-habits-insomnia-segmented-biphasic/621372/
Still does not make you a great historian however
“The US is working with Warsaw to help provide Ukraine with Polish fighter jets as part of a deal in which the Pentagon would give Poland F-16s in exchange…White House said it was negotiating with Poland on a deal and consulting with other Nato allies”
Time is coming to face him down
Secondly, Putin will never end up in the Hague. Would that I'm wrong, but it's never going to happen. He deserves it, but that means nothing.
Dr Mike Martin
“I’m gonna call this:
I think the Russian armed forces are going to collapse, followed by Putin leaving power.
I can’t say this for certain (obviously), but I think this is the eventuality.
Why?
The Ru forces are poorly equipped, led, and supplied. Morale is non-existent.
The Ukrs have very high morale, are fighting on home ground with the population behind them, and seem to have enough resources for now.
These things are the components of fighting power.
And I think that once the Russian armed forces fall apart, Putin won’t be able to remain in power.
We will see over the next ten days whether I am right.
Armies that don’t recover their dead from the battlefield tend not to remain cohesive fighting forces.
Within the next ten days it will be clear whether I am right or not; not that all of the steps I outline will happen in the next ten days.”
Putin's end will be one of terminal illness, coup from within, assination or suicide
It's a different kind of warfare to the ones that the Russians are practicing in Ukraine, but it's warfare sure enough.
I fear Putin will double down and try something drastic to try to remain in power.