Did you agree or disagree with source 1? (1 Viewer)

[ilovezacattard2]

Yes, No, or both.

i disagreed!

 

[sonyaisatroll]

I agreed and disagreed. Suuuuuuuuuuch a great source onnomnomnom.

It took me 55 minutes to finish it. 4 booklets all up.

 

[Zephyrio]

I agreed with him about:
- Using evidence to get to the truth and basing history on this.
- Being able to comment about history.
- Rejecting 'theory' i.e. Pomo.

I disagreed with him about history being about storytelling and entertaining however.

 

[daily302]

both, but mostly no. I thought historians shouldn't try and make history popular or entertaining - but I agreed with using history to understand present and source based

 

[Zephyrio]

both, but mostly no. I thought historians shouldn't try and make history popular or entertaining - but I agreed with using history to understand present and source based

Same! I brought in the fact that there are events where we can't remove e.g. morality from e.g. The Holocaust. In such a way, history can be used as a practical means of allowing society to progress. I thought in matters where we have common ground, we should be allowed to comment.

 

[nirvanafreak02]

i said yes

- history should be didactic
- historians should view the past from the past perspective
- history should entertain the audience (skimped on this a bit)

used strauss + clendinnen, worked well

ignored the shit about theory coz "i didn't think it was relevant to history today"

in short, hooray history's over!

 

[Tragedy Thrills]

I disagreed with it. Said that didactic history is doomed to fail because societal values will inevitably change over time and therefore its significance will decrease. Fairly happy with it, made sure my thesis was tight and pulled out 10 pages on it.

 

[wailer]

Used herodotus and von ranke
Took it apart in relation to question 5 of what is history
said yes and no in comparison to the approaches of my respective historians.
Entertainment yes for herodotus, dispelling myth yes for von ranke.
both for both, no.

 

[Telekinetik]

I agreed/disagreed kind of, mainly agreed. I quoted Commager (from source booklet) and stated that history is both a science and an art, and that it involves both interpretative and rational aspects. Blah blah, basically I had no real interpretation (-suicide-). And that the historian should use both analytical and literary constructs to form a history in order for it to sustain future generations blah blah blah

Basically there is no point to history without a humanist approach, or it'll never survive.

 

[emille-bot]

Pretty much agrizzled.

 

[metalheaven]

I disagreed. I basically said that treating history foremost as a form of entertainment or philosophical pondering is destructive to history. I said that if you're going to use history for these aspects it should run off at a tangent to history and not be the topic of history itself.

 

[Valeska]

I totally trashed Gammage =)
Said that he was a travesty...
especially to that "history should be popular" comment.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

I agreed and disagreed. Suuuuuuuuuuch a great source onnomnomnom.

It took me 55 minutes to finish it. 4 booklets all up.

god I love this shit,
haha.


But, this was a great source in terms of interaction with it.
I disagreed mostly and picked apart contradictions of Gammages argument.