luckyluke 1 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 For fuck's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Surely what Alex is getting at is the difference between things of histroical significance and things which clearly weren't. Glad someone understood that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Surely what Alex is getting at is the difference between things of histroical significance and things which clearly weren't. Glad someone understood that. Textbook case of Alex throwing just about enough theories out there that one inadvertantly hits the mark tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Surely what Alex is getting at is the difference between things of histroical significance and things which clearly weren't. Glad someone understood that. Textbook case of Alex throwing just about enough theories out there that one inadvertantly hits the mark tbh. I only threw one out. Not my fault you couldn't understand what was obvious to others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 History will judge that Alex is seething Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3194 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Fucking hell Ally, your degree sounds thrilling! How did you manage to pick such a dull as fuck subject!? Says the accountant. My degree was boring, but (it wasn't accountancy btw), at least it was mostly numbers and there was a readily attainable right or wrong answer. You're having to wade through stuff about grain collections in 1930s Russia ffs! Besides, I bet accountancy pays better than being a historian......although historians have better beards. Like fuck i'm being a historian! Its not so much about the actual figures, more about the consequences of a few bad years of collections on the peasantry. Its actually quite interesting as history goes, you ignorant git. I'd have to disagree with you there. I think a lot of history is extremely interesting. A lot more of it isn't though. I'd be willing to bet that you're too ignorant re. much of history to make that a valid statement. Actually, you pretentious git, I agree that a lot of history is interesting. But when you consider that history contains everything that has ever happened, a lot more of it will be tedious in the extreme. History is just the past that has been recorded tttt. Point still stands, oypt. History doesn't have to be recorded to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 (edited) History doesn't have to be recorded to exist. Depends what you mean really. We only have access to history that has been recorded though. Edited January 17, 2007 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 history 1 a record or account of past events, developments etc. 2 all that is preserved of the past, esp. in written form 3 the discipline of recording and interpreting past events The emphasis is on the recording (in some way) of past events which therefore allows for the interpretation of that information at a later time. It can be used to just refer to 'the past', but this is a secondary usage and is arguably sloppy as it implies more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3194 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 History doesn't have to be recorded to exist. Depends what you mean really. We only have access to history that has been recorded though. If it has happened it is history. That's why it is interesting there are things out there not recorded but clues to their existence. As an Historian you get the chance to investigate these things and maybe tell the world something it didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 History doesn't have to be recorded to exist. Depends what you mean really. We only have access to history that has been recorded though. If it has happened it is history. That's why it is interesting there are things out there not recorded but clues to their existence. As an Historian you get the chance to investigate these things and maybe tell the world something it didn't know. Not necessarily, although I can't be arsed to go through this again tbh. You could though, for example have a document innacurately recording an event (or even recording an event that never happened). That would still be classed a historical document though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3194 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 History doesn't have to be recorded to exist. Depends what you mean really. We only have access to history that has been recorded though. If it has happened it is history. That's why it is interesting there are things out there not recorded but clues to their existence. As an Historian you get the chance to investigate these things and maybe tell the world something it didn't know. Not necessarily, although I can't be arsed to go through this again tbh. You could though, for example have a document innacurately recording an event (or even recording an event that never happened). That would still be classed a historical document though. Yes because the writing of the document happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34422 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Yow history! No good for me! [/shakespear's sister] That's how alex feels about this thread now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3194 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 his·to·ry /ˈhɪstəri, ˈhɪstri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[his-tuh-ree, his-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ries. 1. the branch of knowledge dealing with past events. 2. a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient. 3. the aggregate of past events. 4. the record of past events and times, esp. in connection with the human race. 5. a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events: a ship with a history. 6. acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of the future; immediate but significant happenings: Firsthand observers of our space program see history in the making. 7. a systematic account of any set of natural phenomena without particular reference to time: a history of the American eagle. 8. a drama representing historical events: Shakespeare's comedies, histories, and tragedies. See everyone is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 History doesn't have to be recorded to exist. Depends what you mean really. We only have access to history that has been recorded though. If it has happened it is history. That's why it is interesting there are things out there not recorded but clues to their existence. As an Historian you get the chance to investigate these things and maybe tell the world something it didn't know. Not necessarily, although I can't be arsed to go through this again tbh. You could though, for example have a document innacurately recording an event (or even recording an event that never happened). That would still be classed a historical document though. Yes because the writing of the document happened. Ok then - something happens, no one sees it, no trace of it can ever be found. Is that event history? I would argue not, unless you take the very broad definition manc-mag alluded to, which is why I wondered what you meant. If you're taking that very broad definition, i.e. any thing in the past, then yes I agree. That's so obvious a point as to not need making though, surely. I would say history is (generally) often just people's interpretations though. Even in the example you give, i.e. a historian investigating clues from the past and reaching a conclusion, it's still just their interpretation of what might have happened isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieshandy 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 It's all water under the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walliver 0 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 More Geordie Wiki magic... Donna Air — one-time pop singer. Born and raised in Newcastle, likes to swallow. Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally 0 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Ahh, forgotten about this thread. Spent the last day reading a book called 'The Truth of History', which says that history isn't true unless you've been there yourself to observe it. All other history is based on inferences etc. Got a point I suppose, but god almighty its dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13836 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Pete Doherty — of Babyshambles and formerly of The Libertines. Born in Hexham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13836 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Ahh, forgotten about this thread. Spent the last day reading a book called 'The Truth of History', which says that history isn't true unless you've been there yourself to observe it. All other history is based on inferences etc. Got a point I suppose, but god almighty its dull. I tried to explain that theory to my friends in 1st year. The thick bastards went mad shouting at me because they could'nt understand. 'How do i personally know that WW2 occurred' 'HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THAT' 'explains theory' 'HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THAT' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_NUFC 0 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Whilst I agree that History is just what is recorded, and therefore before things were recorded it is pre-history. There have been things which occured during the times of recorded history which weren't recorded because they weren't deemed important. They're not pre-history though. They were only one persons interpretation of events too. Imagine if in 1000years time we found either hitlers or churchills diary describing the war. Both records of history, but both vastly different. Hence the problem with reliability of any historical documents. Yeah, but it would still be history. You're right in that it would be biased, but in some respects they would still be reliable - perhaps not so much in trying to get a balanced view of what actually occured, but in asking certain questions or looking at certain things, they may very well be reliable, and in any sense they would most certainly be valuable historical records, regardless of their bias nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_NUFC 0 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Ahh, forgotten about this thread. Spent the last day reading a book called 'The Truth of History', which says that history isn't true unless you've been there yourself to observe it. All other history is based on inferences etc. Got a point I suppose, but god almighty its dull. I've not read that one. Who's it by? It sounds like a Postmodern theory of history. I can't stand it myself - very contradictory. Reading Keith Jenkins did my head in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34422 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Ahh, forgotten about this thread. Spent the last day reading a book called 'The Truth of History', which says that history isn't true unless you've been there yourself to observe it. All other history is based on inferences etc. Got a point I suppose, but god almighty its dull. I tried to explain that theory to my friends in 1st year. The thick bastards went mad shouting at me because they could'nt understand. 'How do i personally know that WW2 occurred' 'HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THAT' 'explains theory' 'HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THAT' Errr, I'm not sure that it was your mates being thick here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinofbeans 86 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 nice to see this thread has derailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally 0 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Ahh, forgotten about this thread. Spent the last day reading a book called 'The Truth of History', which says that history isn't true unless you've been there yourself to observe it. All other history is based on inferences etc. Got a point I suppose, but god almighty its dull. I've not read that one. Who's it by? It sounds like a Postmodern theory of history. I can't stand it myself - very contradictory. Reading Keith Jenkins did my head in. Its by C. Behan McCullagh. Yeh its part of postmodernism, load of shit in my opinion too. Got a lecture in an hour called 'Historical Knowing'. Christ on a bike! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newcastlebroon 0 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 More Geordie Wiki magic... Donna Air — one-time pop singer. Born and raised in Newcastle, likes to swallow. Here classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now