Recent content by amyb

Haha, Psychomushy, good work... I realised i also had 6 minutes to write about the 2nd issue, which is just great cos it is longer than my issue 1...filled 11 pages, but it was short and rushed at the end because of the lack of time. The quotation fit perfectly with my responses, only i only...

I filled 12 pages, but went over time for the question by about 20 minutes....that left me with 6 minutes to write the second half on Q2, which was thrilling. Wrote 4 good pages in the last 6 minutes, which was 11 pages for Q2, and 12 for Q1...not too bad i guess, was expecting it to be around...

I just took quotations from the Source that fit with my argument, think i got 3 good quotes out of it and paraphrased a bit. I didn't state what kind of historian the source was written by, just explained his views and how they corresponded or didn't with other historians.

Lazybum, i was referring to the whole article, which i did not quote due to my own laziness, not the single quote to accredit him with believing in truth. That quotation was meant to show how he is like Foucault, i guess, saying that history needs both factual elements, and some presupposition...

Yeah, anyone else notice how the Heading of the source didn't refer to the Source, and that the Source didn't refer to the Question? Bit weird, but it was good otherwise.

I think like Bloch...but without the total history approach. Like Bullock wants the connections discovered, so that events can be truly understood. Bloch, i think, wanted to include everything...a broad range of sources encompassing broad topics. So, i guess, afterall this, Bullock is...

As far as i can tell, he believes there is truth in history. Here is a quotation that sums up his approach: ' Without hypothesis or synthesis, history remains a pastime for antiquarians; just as without criticism and erudition it loses itself in the realm of fantasy.' So, really, i guess he is...

Smoked Salmon: i did not mean "hmm" in relation to what you said about him being a polemist. I think that sums him up COMPLETELY, he is afterall, writing a very controversial stance on a very controversial issue...if that isn't a polemic, then i don't know what is! I mean "hmm" in relation to...

Yeah, it;s important to have arange of historians, both chronologically and perspective wise. You can use Annales to get into 19th C historians, but instead as an alternative, you can use Relatvist historians, modernists and then get into post-modernists. But like Katgurl said, i would not try...

SmokedSalmon...hmm, me having stuff organised....well maybe not. I like Pm stuff, i find their theories interesting, and yes, confusing...but it makes me want to try to decode what they are saying. I am so stuck on my Q2 response. I do convict women in NSW...how are people structuring this Q...

Yeah, i suppose he isn't, sorry. He came up with an interesting argument...rather strange really: he said that the objective historian was one who was able to understand the development of history, which includes the likely shape of the future. Hmm, anyone else seeing that as completey...

Post structuralism defines that there cannot be a single truth because any 'history' that is written down is done so by one person. This person will comprehend different meanings to words/sentences than the next person. It is about connotations and such in writing that mean that anything i read...

You can include PM without using Winschuttle/Renolds. Foucault, Carr/Elton, White...blah blah. They're not the most recent, or attribute the most controversy, but they are PMs all the same.

I'm doing Convict women in NSW....bloody thrilling...if you're a brick! I seriously cannot imagine doing anything more utterly BORING...

Can i just add one thing: WTF?! I, rather intelligently, avoided the Windschuttle/Reynolds debate at school, as i find the debate over Aboriginal history rather, well, indefinite and unprovable whichever side you support. I have little knowledge on this, but i believe Windschuttle's claims that...