- Joined
- Jul 23, 2017
- Location
- Southwest Missouri
I was wondering if anyone subscribed and could tell me if the context of this paragraph does or does not reflect the overall tone of the article.
But blogging about the Civil War is instructive, because it duplicates much of the cause of the Civil War. The fantastic ideas about how the 11 states were going to defeat the 23 states, and the next three territories ready to apply for statehood, echo what happened in the Civil War. Statements how the 11 states might have used cotton to finance the defeat the states that contained most of the naval power, most of the steamboat industry, most of the cast iron production and virtually all of locomotive production, is a reflection of the non fact based beliefs that had be disproven by the real killing and dying.My experience with bloggers has been a lot like friends of mine who opened bars & restaurants. They spent a lot of time drinking & eating in those places, so on the the basis of that they thought they knew how to run a bar-restaurant. The difference between publishing a book after decades of research on original documents & peer reviews with someone who has ("I have read almost three books..." is my favorite citation) only read secondary documents, quotes they got off the internet & other blog posts is a chasm. Real historians make accountants look like three year olds playing with crayons.
A long time ago, a very wise person told me how to tell a person who was knowledgable & one who is just spouting off. One always uses a lot of qualifying terms, in this case, as we understand it, according to this source, etc. The ignorant person is always adamant. That is because they only know one thing about the subject & believe that is all there is to know. Absolute, profound certainty is the mark of almost every blogger I have ever read & that speaks for itself.
The reason blogs have no academic standing is that they are almost universally unsupported by either research or logic. You don't footnote somebody's what if speculations.
Well said.Just a quick perusal of that synopsis told me all that I needed to know, crusty academics who prefer to keep things just the way they are, those guys haven’t even managed to fully utilise the internet to communicate with others in their own field. It’s something you see time and time again, I’ve written a book so therefore I’m an expert or you have no qualifications so therefore your opinion doesn’t count. I’m fed up with those blogs where an individual has to state all of their qualifications, I actually heard one of these self proclaimed experts state that they had numerous qualifications and that they weren’t just ‘an ordinary person, seriously.
I follow a few civil war enthusiasts on YouTube, they haven’t got a Masters Degree or a diploma but they are full of enthusiasm and they’re willing to share ideas, for me that counts for more than some old academic duffer who believes that they are the final word on all things civil war.
I’d rather listen to the people that go out with their metal detectors and do their own research, far better than some archaeologists that hypothesises from a distance and forms an opinion, I’m a big fan of those whom go out and get their hands dirty and share their finds with the rest of us.
I have to agree w this post.I'd withhold judgment without reading the full article - the excerpt may be based on statements by some (Guelzo?) who appear to throw out "the baby with the bathwater". This issue about blogs is that literally anyone can start up a blog site whether they have any credentials or not and give the public false or misleading "junk". I've seen a few of those. But, as we also know, there are plenty of biog sites operated by folks who are highly qualified and who do the research. Some, in fact, are operated by so-called "academics" so a blanket statement from an "academic elite" point of view is ironic, to say the least. I don't understand the criticism if it's directed at a forum like this one. It's a forum for discussion and no one person's point of view on anything can be used to say "CWT" said this or that.
Blogging is a perfectly fine activity, but it is not something that a student can use in a footnote.But blogging about the Civil War is instructive, because it duplicates much of the cause of the Civil War. The fantastic ideas about how the 11 states were going to defeat the 23 states, and the next three territories ready to apply for statehood, echo what happened in the Civil War. Statements how the 11 states might have used cotton to finance the defeat the states that contained most of the naval power, most of the steamboat industry, most of the cast iron production and virtually all of locomotive production, is a reflection of the non fact based beliefs that had be disproven by the real killing and dying.
Blogging is a perfectly fine activity, but it is not something that a student can use in a footnote.But blogging about the Civil War is instructive, because it duplicates much of the cause of the Civil War. The fantastic ideas about how the 11 states were going to defeat the 23 states, and the next three territories ready to apply for statehood, echo what happened in the Civil War. Statements how the 11 states might have used cotton to finance the defeat the states that contained most of the naval power, most of the steamboat industry, most of the cast iron production and virtually all of locomotive production, is a reflection of the non fact based beliefs that had be disproven by the real killing and dying.
Does the modern interpretation or translation of Herodotus lose something, is there really anything extra that can be gained from studying the original writing? I’m not asking that question to be difficult but the same could be said for reading the later translation of Tacitus, which I have to add, I always allow for little artistic licence.It is indeed a strange theme: what is the difference between a trained Historian and an amateur ?
I mean, when we talk about Ancient History the difference is quite big. For example:
Ancient Greek History: Ancient Greek is a must, Ancient Latin is useful
Ancient Roman History: Ancient Latin is a must, Greek is useful
Medieval History: latin is very useful
In this case there is a big difference between a trained historian and an amateur. I study History with great profit at my University but even with a Master and a Doctorate I won't make of History my job: I do not know those ancient languages. That is sad but true: If I can't read the original words of Herodotus what research can I do ?
The difference is not that big when we talk about more recent History (the American Civil War for example): the difference there is in the research. In my truly humble opinion our good friend Eric is in fact an Historian: he does use the correct method. That is the first important thing. Then he wrote many books on the subject that were critically acclaimed.
In Italy we have many social media dedicated to History. Rome is a thing my friends. It is everywhere: Facebook, youtube, Istagram. Unfortunately the video are often quite a mess.
The first picture of this video is totally wrong: the battle Aniene was fought in the IV Century BC during the Roman Republic, but the Roman Legionary is from the Imperial period (40-50 AD !!!); Gaul was finally subjected to Rome's power in the middle of the I century BC (Gallic Wars 58-51 BC) so the picture is anacronist. Nevertheless the guy is really good, he loves history. His video are very popular and that is a good thing, he does not hurt anyone.
A long time ago, a very wise person told me how to tell a person who was knowledgable & one who is just spouting off. One always uses a lot of qualifying terms, in this case, as we understand it, according to this source, etc. The ignorant person is always adamant. That is because they only know one thing about the subject & believe that is all there is to know. Absolute, profound certainty is the mark of almost every blogger I have ever read & that speaks for itself.
The reason blogs have no academic standing is that they are almost universally unsupported by either research or logic. You don't footnote somebody's what if speculations.
The academic world is one of qualifiers, as you mention. But most of the rest of the world it is one that deals in absolutes, especially in communication.
When I was in grade school we were explicitly instructed to write papers as if our argument was established fact.
I have been a contributing blogger for the last few months on a history blog. One of the challenges is that it's not a medium where citing your sources is very easy or practical. In some cases I can link digitized records on the National Archives. I don't want to burn half my alloted word count on footnotes.
Similarly, I've started writing a quarterly local history e-newsletter at work. Information is coming from primary sources, but there's no room to cite them.
Even some book publishers, like History Press, are citation-free even if the author did good primary source research.
Does the modern interpretation or translation of Herodotus lose something, is there really anything extra that can be gained from studying the original writing? I’m not asking that question to be difficult but the same could be said for reading the later translation of Tacitus, which I have to add, I always allow for little artistic licence.
You are right of course about Rome being a thing, I’ve travelled to Rome numerous times, traveled the length and breadth of Britain and a few places in Europe exploring Roman history. I spend time in my local area looking for pottery and artefacts which I’ve done with some success and I’ve even developed my own thoughts on how a specific Iron Age hill fort was subjugated. I’m absolutely not a historian although I’ve studied archaeology and read many books on Roman military history. The question I guess, is does my opinion matter less because I haven’t got letters after my name or that I haven’t published any work?
I’ll hold my hands up and declare right now that most of my knowledge comes from qualified historians, the problem of course is that I have to take their word that the research is accurate but there have been many occasions when I’ve seen notable historians repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors only later is it proven that their beliefs are wrong. Its a bit like Chinese whispers and as an enthusiastic amateur I’m at risk of taking something as factual when it’s totally inaccurate.
I’m in total agreement with you that there is a correct method for research, I believe that if any amateur historian wants to be taken seriously then they have to put in the time and research using methods which are recognised by academia.
That post of yours was very interesting and I for one greatly appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts.
I’m in total agreement with you that there is a correct method for research, I believe that if any amateur historian wants to be taken seriously then they have to put in the time and research using methods which are recognised by academia.
Issues of expertise and qualifications have always interested me. Is there any basis for saying that a historian must have academic credentials in the study of history, or is an independent researcher without academic credentials justified in claiming to be a historian, as long as he or she follows recognized standards? And who has the right to say, one way or another?
Roy B.
I believe you have made a distinction without a difference. Oral history, family history, folk knowledge, anecdotes, personal memoirs & research are all practiced by amateur historians. The difference is the original sources, methodology, historiography, rigorous adherence to standards & peer review that distinguish an academic historian from an amateur.Issues of expertise and qualifications have always interested me. Is there any basis for saying that a historian must have academic credentials in the study of history, or is an independent researcher without academic credentials justified in claiming to be a historian, as long as he or she follows recognized standards? And who has the right to say, one way or another?
Roy B.
What you are missing is the mentorship, methodology, & hard earned knowledge that academic historians have worked a lifetime to learn & live to pass along. I can testify from long personal experience, academic historians have a depth & breath of knowledge that no amateur can ever attain. I am well aware that certain individuals can achieve a narrow expertise on their own because I am one of them. I am also well aware that if I hadn't met the skepticism & encouragement of professionals there is no way i could have learned the methodology I needed to get where I am today.The way I look at it, there's nothing you can learn in college that you can't also learn outside of college as well without racking up a mountain of debt. Just because I've never been to culinary school doesn't mean my mac & cheese will catch fire and explode.