debates important? Q1 (1 Viewer)

[jaNetix]

how important is it to do like the winschuttle/ reynold debate (wateva his name is)

coz i use winschuttle but not wid the debate...i dont do any debates...just seperate historians...

 

[SmokedSalmon]

you can use any historian as long as it suits the question and has some sort of link to the source's issues.
I don't know the debate very well either. I know that windschuttle, for one thing, attacks other peoples interpreations of Aboriginal history. Reynolds regards the treatment of the aboriginies as a genocide. But Windschuttle, using Ranke's idea of objective history that 'each era is unique', therefore genocide can not be used in accordance to 19th century history. The term 'genocide' did not come into production until 20th century i believe. Um yeah... some1 clarify this with me?

What exact historians are u using?

 

[jaNetix]

doin herodotus, bede, ranke, windschuttle, vincent, becker

 

[SmokedSalmon]

So you know those historians well? then you are fine. Just ensure you have a knowledge of the four main types of historians. I think are Classical, Empericists, Relativists, and Post Modernists (Windschuttle is NOT a post modernist). Don't kill me ok? I called up the advice line and they said knowing historians from these 4 categories are bound to get you the best marks.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to look at Thucydides as well cause Ranke derives his method of analysing sources from Thucydides.

 

[*10#]

Whats the difference between a relativist and a postmodernist ???????

 

[*10#]

dont worry i found the answer to my own question

E H Carr is a relativist but not totally a postmodernist because he does not reject the possibility of objectivity
Hayden White on the otherhand is a fully fledged postmodernist.

im glad i clarified that for myself

 

[gloria*]

i've never done windschuttle. he seriously is not that interesting in terms of historiography and i can think of much better contemporary historians that remain curiously untouched by the majority of history extension students.

 

[SmokedSalmon]

good for you gloria. I am not using windschuttle... only if I HAVE to. Bah... I don't even see him as a real historian.

 

[lazybum]

mmmm i agree
i'm doiing Richard evans - he's briilliant!
and if need be David Irviing who's a fascist racist . Since ii'm totally opposed to what he writes i'llll shock the examiiner with my utter hatred and proofs to show his IDIOCY

I don't recommend you do a person you don't care for, because then it's a boring arguement. Liike Herodortus, i'm fiinding it very diifficult to flaair up what ii'm writing, because everyone else is writiing the very same thiing

 

[arls]

Originally posted by lazybum
mmmm i agree
i'm doiing Richard evans - he's briilliant!
and if need be David Irviing who's a fascist racist . Since ii'm totally opposed to what he writes i'llll shock the examiiner with my utter hatred and proofs to show his IDIOCY

I don't recommend you do a person you don't care for, because then it's a boring arguement. Liike Herodortus, i'm fiinding it very diifficult to flaair up what ii'm writing, because everyone else is writiing the very same thiing

BULL SHIT! Herodotus was one of the first credible historians!! how can u think he wrote wat every one else did? jus read a few of his passages and compare them to the boring thucydides.. herodotus gathered a wide range of sources, made a few up and then whipped up this fantastic story to be read aloud! how can you thin thats the same as others of his time.. or even today??

I compare herodotus' style with the film genre today (for example that chines movie changi) and the way they both manipulate evidence to entertain the audience.. i think its amazing that you can compare someone from 400 BC to Doyle the director of changi and see some distinct similarities!!!

and then Thucydides was more like Ranke... scientific accretion of evidence very systematic.. although he was often wrong! and his works are just so boring (in my opinion hes not reaching the aim of engagement with the reader..) just slabs of infor from interviews he asked.... and he doesnt even admit fallabilities...!!!

so yeah... thats enough stuff for me.. but please Herodotus is so interesting youve just gotta relate his stuff to modern day!!!
hope i havent bored anyone to death

 

[lazybum]

no no arls you got my gist wrong
of course i like herodotus and everything, but everyone in the entire STATE is writing about him . i didn't mean to say that he writes like all the other historiians throughout time!!!!!! one can't make such an impact when you write about him because everyone is wriitiing the same thing

nice essay but !!!!!!
i ihear you did Gentileschi for your assignment
she was my major artiiist in my art exam (see my post in the thread about what everyone did for their assignments)

 

[MiuMiu]

Ive got 7 historians and their schools down pat, just need to memorise quotes (although I tend to make them up anyway, I have a knack for making up very realistic sounding quotes).

 

[eveajac]

jaNetix see my other thread, 'Section 1 Debates' - i use debates within my case study (appeasement) for question 1 as well as in question 2 - not as my main point but just a couple of paragraphs i can make relevant. I use other historians (herodotus etc) too of course.
So if you are worried about the whole 'debates' thing i recommend you do that - it goes down well