History forum general discussion

CDfm

>> EDIT- I have changed the title of this thread as it has developed into a more general discussion than original title was.
Jonniebgood1<<

This topic is bring bandied around - if not on the forum itself then by pm.

I brought it up with Johnnie here

Originally Posted by CDfm
It seems odd that this discussion is on the history forum and not in humanities.

Maybe there needs to be a subforum for threads like this because it hardly really fits here.

Who replied

I would listen to this line of thought but wouldnt really agree at this point.

So the invitation is there to discuss it.

Now I am not a history snob , but, I like my facts . My primary qualification is in economics and when I see " political economics " being bandied around my feeling is conjecture and waffle not backed by facts. (
Its the why I dont post in the economics forum BTW).

I am not right all of the time and think my entertainment and movie history has an equal right to get a place with the more serious issues of the day.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055964448

So there is no right or wrong here just that there has been a general discussion on "real history" going on off-line.

Serious "real history" heads like me don't do the other stuff much and are in to source backed material. Now a political history guy wont see it that way and will want debate as opposed to discussing facts.

I know from the quality of the material we get here that there are some highly qualified historians and serious history buffs posting as well as fans ( my feet are firmly in both camps ) and then politcal types.

I myself have been known to go on the odd rant that Irish Women in History are not given anywhere near the prominence that they deserve on merit and if someone suggested a Womens History sub-forum I would be against it for that reason .

What I am saying is that threads like "Reds under the bed" may have a certain political ideology behind them and they really are not a fit with real history. A real history thread would discuss the origans of the socialist movement in Ireland as a political movement versus the other political parties and its adversity to the church. I know that in my own home town one of the local trade union leaders was best buddy of the local Canon and saw no incompatibility between his religious beliefs and his political beliefs and had issues with some politicians saying what his religious beliefs should be.

So I am saying that the political history IMO maybe a tad revisionist , take Jack Murphy TD, a man who deserves a thread in his own right but from a Jack Murphy POV and maybe his family.

jonniebgood1

Thanks CD.

I have made this a sticky and would further to your query above invite any other proposals for how regular users of this page feel it should develop. I will keep the thread open for suggestions as long as it is useful.

MarchDub

I agree CD; the problem with the threads you cited - "Reds" and the beauty pageant type threads is that we end up only getting posters' opinions - frequently quite passionately - without very much real sourced information at all except articles used as defence/evidence to bolster some political or sociological view. Actual historical events are sidelined and it all becomes endless political opinion or personal opinion discussions. The result is dull IMO - frankly it's boring to me. It is shutting down real cited historical discussions about actual events.

A sub-form would work for those who want this kind of exchange.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I agree CD; the problem with the threads you cited - "Reds" and the beauty pageant type threads is that we end up only getting posters' opinions - frequently quite passionately ......
A sub-form would work for those who want this kind of exchange.

thats what I think too

and real history avoids ad hominem style arguments because in general those issues are decided by a referenced fact

and it also gives others the chance to challenge the source material if the source is not reliable or is biased

CDfm

Anyway -isnt it a pity with all the fora on boards -each section has ots own history and you would think that there is a history potential in each

like famous photographers or the history of broadcasting even farmers

Fratton Fred

I suppose the question then is what is this forum?

Is it somewhere for people to discuss history, offering different views and opinions, or is it somewhere for people to simply post up articles they have found?

My personal opinion is that the more serious history buffs would be better suited to a private forum where they can invite only those with a similar interest in history and get rid of those they don't like.

That way they don't have to listen to those whose opinions they don't like.

CDfm

History isn't just about opinions, it is primarily about facts. And the study of history is acquiring knowledge of those facts and a historical opinion is an interpretation of those facts.

If you go to a doctor and present with symptoms he or she will give you a medical opinion based on those symptoms. That opinion will be supported by the facts. Just because you have a belly does not make you pregnant and one of the facts may be because you are a man and that option gets discounted straight away.

A historical opinion is the same. If you base your history on opinions alone without facts ,then it is just chat, it may sound like history and use the same language but it isn't history. This is what the revisionists do and it is not good history as it cherrypicks and edits out lots .


You are a football fan. And, if you read a match review and commentary in a newspaper you have an expectation that it is based on an actual match and that the journalist has watched the game. Thats what you expect.

If you go to any of the science based fora on boards they adhere to particular standards .

I am not a serious history head but when I do get involved I base it on facts and sometimes get it wrong. I put my sources out there too so that others can see them and discuss my interpretation. If the facts throw up something (even stuff I do not like )then that goes in there too.

I tackled Patrick Pearse and included lots of material that was not flattering to him too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056192193

I regularly remind people of the Duke of Wellingtons famine prediction and where his sympathies lay and try to be very balanced. This is history and part of the fun is finding and uncovering facts.

I also use facts to challenge assertions others make when I disagree with their interpretation. I did a Jack Murphy TD thread when I disagreed with Johnnie our Mod but I also listed the claims for the origan of the labour movement to 1798 just in case someone wanted to develop a theme or comparison to the Tolpuddle Martyrs even though personally I do not believe it to be the case.

James Connolly cited 1798 as an influence on the labour movement as striking a blow for the common man? Now hands up here , I have done some copywriting in my time and some of Connolly's writing is a bit like a hack - I have no problem with that BTW as claiming nationalist roots may have been good for the labour movement and politicians do that sort of thing. Wharever, whats the truth ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73805936&postcount=76

Fratton Fred

To use your football analogy (an area I am more comfortable with), the facts are pretty boring, because they don't tell the whole story.

If Manchester United were to beat Shamrock Rovers in the champions league final 6 nil, the facts show it as humbling for Rovers. The truth though is that rovers did well to get there in the first place.

History isn't mathematics CD, it is the story of our past not a calculation that can't be argued against.

Let's take Trevellyan's quote that the real evil of the famine was the moral evil of the selfish perverse...people.

That is often bandied about as an indication the famine was genocide and showed the British racist attitude to the Irish, but who are the people he is talking about? The starving poor, or the farmers and merchants profiteering from the food shortage?

I haven't seen any conclusive proof either way, so it is something we will all have our own opinion on, without opinions what is the point of a discussion board? Why not just have this forum as a place to copy and paste various facts.

CDfm

The Duke of Wellington had a view and was born in Ireland and I prefer to accept his analysis because it is from the era and he was in government.

That makes it history and if I put my own views first then it is about me and my views and not about the history.

Comments of the Duke of Wellington (1830)

Politicians were well aware of the underlying causes though they did nothing to tackle them. For example, on 7 July 1830 the Duke of Wellington wrote:

I confess that the annually recurring starvation in Ireland, for a period differing, according to the goodness or badness of the season, from one week to three months, gives me more uneasiness than any other evil existing in the United Kingdom.
It is starvation, because it is the fact that, although there is an abundance of provisions in the country of a superior kind, and at a cheaper rate than the same can be bought in any other part of Her Majesty’s dominions, those who want in the midst of plenty cannot get, because they do not possess even the small sum of money necessary to buy a supply of food.
It occurs every year, for that period of time that elapses between the final consumption of one year’s crop of potatoes, and the coming of the crop of the following year, and it is long or short, according as the previous season has been bad or good.
Now when this misfortune occurs, there is no relief or mitigation, excepting a recourse to public money. The proprietors of the country, those who ought to think for the people, to foresee this misfortune, and to provide beforehand a remedy for it, are amusing themselves in the Clubs in London, in Cheltenham, or Bath, or on the Continent, and the Government are made responsible for the evil, and they must find the remedy for it where they can—anywhere excepting in the pockets of Irish Gentlemen.
Then, if they give public money to provide a remedy for this distress, it is applied to all purposes excepting the one for which it is given; and more particularly to that one, viz. the payment of arrears of an exorbitant rent.
However, we must expect that this evil will continue, and will increase as the population will increase, and the chances of a serious evil, such as the loss of a large number of persons by famine, will be greater in proportion to the numbers existing in Ireland in the state in which we know that the great body of the people are living at this moment. [Wellington to Northumberland, 7 July 1830, in Despatches, vii 111–2; repr. in P. S. O’Hegarty, A history of Ireland under the Union (London 1952) 291–2]

The political culture of the time encouraged philanthropy, and charitable organisations were founded in Britain to help the Irish poor, whose miserable plight was described by writers and travellers such as Walter Scott (1771–1832), Gustave de Beaumont (1802–66), J. G. Kohl (1808–78, a German geographer and traveller, writing in 1843) and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–59, a French traveller and political analyst, writing of his visit to Ireland in 1835). Above all, Irish landlords were exhorted to do their duty by the poor. Some did, and spent substantial sums of money to help distressed areas. Many did not.


http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Famine

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

The Duke of Wellington had a view and was born in Ireland and I prefer to accept his analysis because it is from the era and he was in government.

That makes it history and if I put my own views first then it is about me and my views and not about the history.

There is no ambiguity in that excerpt though.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no ambiguity in that excerpt though.

And that is whats fun in history and the internet is that nowdays you can verify or uncover sources.

Like the Churchill thing.

He was a bit kinder to Ireland during WWII than the US ambassador was.

MarchDub

Fred - I think you are misunderstanding how historical analysis is done. Historical analysis is not based on one data point as you suggest re the Trevelyan Report - or it won't be taken seriously. One data point is never sufficient for any conclusive analysis. Regarding the Famine there are many data points proffered on the issue of whether it was or was not genocide - and even the meaning of 'genocide' comes into the discussion. The question posed is - is genocide always planned or can it come from opportunistic neglect and even, does it require the total elimination of a population etc. I am not going to answer this here - just explaining what the discussion involves.

As regards the Irish Famine there are cabinet minutes, parliamentary debates and the infamous writings of Nassau William Senior and his callous submission that one million Irish dead would not solve the economic difficulties [I'm paraphrasing here, I don't have his exact quote in front of me]. All these data points are part of the discussion and the conclusions by historians.

The point is that your statement that this discussion revolves only around the Trevelyan report - and therefore needs challenging - is not correct.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Fred - I think you are misunderstanding how historical analysis is done. Historical analysis is not based on one data point as you suggest re the Trevelyan Report - or it won't be taken seriously. One data point is never sufficient for any conclusive analysis. Regarding the Famine there are many data points proffered on the issue of whether it was or was not genocide - and even the meaning of 'genocide' comes into the discussion. The question posed is - is genocide always planned or can it come from opportunistic neglect and even, does it require the total elimination of a population etc. I am not going to answer this here - just explaining what the discussion involves.

As regards the Irish Famine there are cabinet minutes, parliamentary debates and the infamous writings of Nassau William Senior and his callous submission that one million Irish dead would not solve the economic difficulties [I'm paraphrasing here, I don't have his exact quote in front of me]. All these data points are part of the discussion and the conclusions by historians.

The point is that your statement that this discussion revolves only around the Trevelyan report - and therefore needs challenging - is not correct.

That's good and thanks for telling me this.

I guess my point about a private forum is how serious or academic this forum is supposed to be.

Is it a pace for historians to get together and discuss research sources, or is it a pace where people like me with a keen interest in history can question and educate ourselves.

Plus, like it or not, popular Irish history is highly politicised and full of myth and urban legend (Wellesley and his supposed quote about being born in a barn springs to mind). There seems to be a reluctance to challenge a lot of it for fear of being branded a revisionist, as you may have noticed, this is something I quite enjoy doing!

If this is not the place for it, then fine, but I think the place would be boring if we all thought the same.

slowburner

We need a definition of 'real' history and a definition of socio-political history.
And along the way, maybe we need to discuss the methodologies appropriate to each?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is it a pace for historians to get together and discuss research sources, or is it a pace where people like me with a keen interest in history can question and educate ourselves.

I think it's for both but seeing as how the study of History is an academic subject IMO the discussion must have the parameters of any academic discussion. Otherwise you aren't going to learn anything other than the hearsay and unfounded opinions you might hear about in a pub. And that's not a way to educate yourself.

slowburner

MarchDub wrote: »

I think it's for both but seeing as how the study of History is an academic subject IMO the discussion must have the parameters of any academic discussion. Otherwise you aren't going to learn anything other than the hearsay and unfounded opinions you might hear about in a pub. And that's not way to educate yourself.

How does the heritage part of the forum title fit in?

CDfm

And a forum like ours should be inclusive and thats hard if we start getting in to the political zone and our own biases etc.

We are discussing past events and not current affairs. We can look at it historically -without any spin.

Like, today Fred posted about UK slavery and between the noise I never got to find out about it. Does that make sense ?

Internet history is great and factual historical info is always available without having to resort to hyperbole.

CDfm

slowburner wrote: »

How does the heritage part of the forum title fit in?

Heritage is more like culture, "lore" and local history and what MD would call "tabloid"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055964448

Because it is history we run with factual info. Did Dame Alice turn into a cat would not be a subject for here but her trials etc are

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055578902

Or something old and interesting in its own right

Am I explaining this correctly ?

MarchDub wrote: »

I think it's for both but seeing as how the study of History is an academic subject IMO the discussion must have the parameters of any academic discussion. Otherwise you aren't going to learn anything other than the hearsay and unfounded opinions you might hear about in a pub. And that's not a way to educate yourself.

I also think cos we are not academics we can get low brow in our facts and subject matters too.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I also think cos we are not academics we can get low brow in our facts and subject matters too.

I think you might be surprised at how 'low brow' many academic subject matters are.

Nhead

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's good and thanks for telling me this.

I guess my point about a private forum is how serious or academic this forum is supposed to be.

Is it a pace for historians to get together and discuss research sources, or is it a pace where people like me with a keen interest in history can question and educate ourselves.

Plus, like it or not, popular Irish history is highly politicised and full of myth and urban legend (Wellesley and his supposed quote about being born in a barn springs to mind). There seems to be a reluctance to challenge a lot of it for fear of being branded a revisionist, as you may have noticed, this is something I quite enjoy doing!

If this is not the place for it, then fine, but I think the place would be boring if we all thought the same.

The problem (for want of a better word) Fred is when people say that IRISH history is highly politicised and full of myth and urban legend they are saying this as if it was unique in that respect, every countries history has these aspects. For example: Henry VIII, many people assume that when you say he was 'defender of the faith' they assume that you mean the Protestant faith when in fact he was called this by pope Leo X as he defended the Catholic faith. There are countless examples. What I find, especially when discussing Irish history online is that if people are talking about a factual event in history, say the introduction of the bicycle in Victorian Ireland, that people start saying ah so or so is republican or so or so is unionist and facts fly out the window.

* A book I keep meaning to read is 'Cycling in Victorian Ireland' by Brian Griffin (not the canine one ha ha)

CDfm

Nhead wrote: »

The problem (for want of a better word) Fred is when people say that IRISH history is highly politicised and full of myth and urban legend they are saying this as if it was unique in that respect, every countries history has these aspects.

And there are enough places on the internet for politicised Irish history and H&H should not be afraid to stick with what we do.

I wouldn't post with highly politicised stuff .

And the formating on boards is ideal for history.

slowburner

Nhead wrote: »

The problem (for want of a better word) Fred is when people say that IRISH history is highly politicised and full of myth and urban legend they are saying this as if it was unique in that respect, every countries history has these aspects. For example: Henry VIII, many people assume that when you say he was 'defender of the faith' they assume that you mean the Protestant faith when in fact he was called this by pope Leo X as he defended the Catholic faith. There are countless examples. What I find, especially when discussing Irish history online is that if people are talking about a factual event in history, say the introduction of the bicycle in Victorian Ireland, that people start saying ah so or so is republican or so or so is unionist and facts fly out the window.

* A book I keep meaning to read is 'Cycling in Victorian Ireland' by Brian Griffin (not the canine one ha ha)

Not only do facts fly out the window when history gets wrongly politicised - the subject becomes exceptionally dull.
Having said that, ultimately this is an internet chat forum - not an academic institute. How many people read threads right from the start? Fair enough, to keep things away from politicisation you need to stick to the facts and stay disinterested. But there should be scope for more than lists of facts. There should be scope for hypothesis.
Otherwise, there is the risk of becoming 'stuffed shirts' who bounce people off the forum because they can't bombard a thread with facts.

Or is the plan to move towards writing properly referenced academic papers full of op cits, sics, ibids ? Kinda has to be one or t'other.

Nhead

slowburner wrote: »

Not only do facts fly out the window when history gets wrongly politicised - the subject becomes exceptionally dull.
Having said that, ultimately this is an internet chat forum - not an academic institute. How many people read threads right from the start? Fair enough, to keep things away from politicisation you need to stick to the facts and stay disinterested. But there should be scope for more than lists of facts. There should be scope for hypothesis.
Otherwise, there is the risk of becoming 'stuffed shirts' who bounce people off the forum because they can't bombard a thread with facts.

Or is the plan to move towards writing properly referenced academic papers full of op cits, sics, ibids ? Kinda has to be one or t'other.

I agree with you on that it shouldn't be stuffed shirts (but I don't think it is that way). Politics is an important part of history and it is very difficult to look at a topic like the Home Rule party without it being political but it should be, in my opinion and I stress imo, politics with a small 'p' and not a party political broadcast on behalf of x,y and z. Essentialist comments such as 'the Irish are all..' and 'the British are all..' serve no purpose.

Personally, I have no problem with revisionism once it is backed up by facts. What I find funny about the 'net (and this hasn't came up in this forum) is when revisionism goes like this 'Well you know that St. Patrick wasn't Irish' (no **** Sherlock I kinda figured that out when I was six and heard he was brought here as a slave, it kinda clicked). Or James Joyce, GB Shaw et al weren't Irish as Ireland was part of the Union when they were born (clearly showing the person doesn't understand the union). Seriously the amount of times I have heard that as an argument is beyond funny. This is an example of the kind of revisionism that supposes that Irish people don't understand history in the slighest and are now about to be enlightened by someone who read an article on Irish history once. Again, I stress this hasn't came up here.

CDfm

Nhead wrote: »

I agree with you on that it shouldn't be stuffed shirts (but I don't think it is that way).

Its a Community Group and not an academic forum so its not an exam or peer reviewed so really it reflects what we are interested in at anyone time.

When I did the entertainers/actors thread who cared if Jayne Mansfield wore any underwear on her Kerry visit in 1967 when the local bishop objected to her performance.

Thats social and entertainment stuff and I am still waiting for the person who promised the name of a 1960's Irish porn actress to post it,

Politics is an important part of history and it is very difficult to look at a topic like the Home Rule party without it being political but it should be, in my opinion and I stress imo, politics with a small 'p' and not a party political broadcast on behalf of x,y and z. Essentialist comments such as 'the Irish are all..' and 'the British are all..' serve no purpose.

Ok -we all have our biases and they come out and history is largely factual and politics should be looked at like that here.

Like elections got decided on election day 100 years ago.

We should sort of try to get along and say right its Irish history 2 or 3 or 4 different traditions and be able to state the facts without getting up each others snots.

I started some NI threads cos the stuff was new to me and I depended on the other posters to help me understand its history and I got lots of good things I would not have gotten in books.

Personally, I have no problem with revisionism once it is backed up by facts. What I find funny about the 'net (and this hasn't came up in this forum) is when revisionism goes like this 'Well you know that St. Patrick wasn't Irish' (no **** Sherlock I kinda figured that out ....... Again, I stress this hasn't came up here.

And, history is often about finding out new things on old events and new sourses and the internet is great for that.

Imagine how I felt looking at the Patrick Pearse thread having been looking for Willie Pearse sculptures when I thought the people on the forum dont know about the half brother and sister etc

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70903358&postcount=13

So ya it is amateur historians and we can do it

Nhead

Indeed. Amateur or professional an historian is an historian. It is a subject/interest for all.

MarchDub

TBH I don't think that the problem is an issue between amateur or professional - both are interested in doing research and discovering truth.

The problem that we've had is IMO - for whatever reasons - posts that just taunt and insult and attempt to derail anything on the record that is not palatable.

slowburner

MarchDub wrote: »

TBH I don't think that the problem is an issue between amateur or professional - both are interested in doing research and discovering truth.

The problem that we've had is IMO - for whatever reasons - posts that just taunt and insult and attempt to derail anything on the record that is not palatable.

There is indeed, much in history which is not palatable .

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

posts that just taunt and insult and attempt to derail anything on the record that is not palatable.

slowburner wrote: »

There is indeed, much in history which is not palatable .

Altogether now

*Group Hug*

slowburner

Ah go on then

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

TBH I don't think that the problem is an issue between amateur or professional - both are interested in doing research and discovering truth.

The problem that we've had is IMO - for whatever reasons - posts that just taunt and insult and attempt to derail anything on the record that is not palatable.

One man's derailment is another's injection of an alternative point of view ;-))

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

One man's derailment is another's injection of an alternative point of view ;-))

Not without documentation it isn't - it's just undocumented and unsupported opinion.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Not without documentation it isn't - it's just undocumented and unsupported opinion.

Documentation is the historian's statistics, it can prove anything you like.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Not without documentation it isn't - it's just undocumented and unsupported opinion.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Documentation is the historian's statistics, it can prove anything you like.

They didn't get the hugs :eek:

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Documentation is the historian's statistics, it can prove anything you like.

Fred - documentation has NOTHING to do with statistics, it is the written record of events. Not a fantasy of what might or what ifs...

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

They didn't get the hugs :eek:

I was about to post the same on Fred's first offensive - but declined.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Fred - documentation has NOTHING to do with statistics, it is the written record of events. Not a fantasy of what might or what ifs...

I agree documentation is persuasive for history and usually here & it is usually the controvercial unsupported stuff that causes the arguments .

I suppose it is like why we criticise Ruth Dudley Edwards because she does not let the facts get in the way of her opinions.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

They didn't get the hugs :eek:

Posting from a phone means no smilies I'm afraid.

My comments were only tongue in cheek.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I suppose the question then is what is this forum?

Is it somewhere for people to discuss history, offering different views and opinions, or is it somewhere for people to simply post up articles they have found?

My personal opinion is that the more serious history buffs would be better suited to a private forum where they can invite only those with a similar interest in history and get rid of those they don't like.

That way they don't have to listen to those whose opinions they don't like.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

To use your football analogy (an area I am more comfortable with), the facts are pretty boring, because they don't tell the whole story.

To use a football analogy. Some lads are playing Gaelic on a GAA pitch. Some brat comes along and says he wants to play soccer on the soccer pitch. The lads tell him no, sorry, we're playing Gaelic. So the brat doesn't like it, he gets the ball and kicks it over onto the soccer pitch and says, I want soccer and that's it.

The ball is retrived, the brat is told it's a Gaelic match not a soccer match, the brat of course doesn't like it and repeats his actions. And so on and so on - until he's given a kick up the ar$e and sent on his way until he decides to have a bit of respect and stay away or else play the game like the rest of the other lads.

Simples.

jonniebgood1

Can they not just use both pitches and get on together in harmony?

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can they not just use both pitches and get on together in harmony?

That sounds like a great idea, I am sure we are all sportsmen and at the end of the day it's a game of two halves so we should take it a game at a time and not be as sick as a parrot. (Can't think of anymore cliches, sorry).

We appear to have a problem with hooliganism though.........

HellsAngel

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can they not just use both pitches and get on together in harmony?

Fine, if the brat wants to start a game of soccer or rugby or American football on the other pitch fine. But if the lads who started a Gaelic match and want to play this Gaelic match - brat has no right to try and keep disrupting it to get what he wants.

HellsAngel

MarchDub wrote: »

TBH I don't think that the problem is an issue between amateur or professional - both are interested in doing research and discovering truth.

The problem that we've had is IMO - for whatever reasons - posts that just taunt and insult and attempt to derail anything on the record that is not palatable.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

One man's derailment is another's injection of an alternative point of view ;-))

Funny thing about Fred is, this problem of derailing threads etc wasn't an issue with him until BraintheBard stopped moderating a few weeks ago

Fratton Fred

The names change, but the trolling stays the same.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The names change, but the trolling stays the same.

Now how long before Getz comes along........:D But tell us Fred, how come the this problem of derailing threads, insulting and taunting people ( MarchDub in particuliar) wasn't an issue with you on the H & H forum until BraintheBard left ??

CDfm

HellsAngel wrote: »

Funny thing about Fred is, this problem of derailing threads etc wasn't an issue with him until BraintheBard stopped moderating a few weeks ago

HellsAngel wrote: »

Fine, if the brat wants to start a game of soccer or rugby or American football on the other pitch fine. But if the lads who started a Gaelic match and want to play this Gaelic match - brat has no right to try and keep disrupting it to get what he wants.

But it ain't a gaelic match or a soccer match.

The point of the thread is to uncover facts about events in another time and the challenge is the facts and not which side you are on or where your sympathies lie.

On some threads I started , it was because I heard them as facts from the actual participants. Some good & some bad. And sometimes revisionist history does not say it as it was.

Take Angela McCourts appraisal of her sons' work

Even Angela McCourt had challenged her son's recollections before her death in 1981. Frank and his brother Malachy had persuaded her to attend A Couple of Blackguards, their stand-up memoirs, in a Manhattan theatre. Angela interrupted the tearful renditions of their childhood, standing up and shouting at the stage: "It didn't happen that way. It's all a pack of lies."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/5867097/Frank-McCourt.html

No one benefits when a thread is derailed and we get people leaving and not posting because they do not want to hear the same stuff over and over.

When you think about it -the person doing the trolling/derailing does worst out of it because no one reads their stuff and when they do have well sourced and decent material no one gets to see or doubts it.

jonniebgood1

HellsAngel wrote: »

Funny thing about Fred is, this problem of derailing threads etc wasn't an issue with him until BraintheBard stopped moderating a few weeks ago

Warning for targetting individual. This is against charter. Please heed.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Posting from a phone means no smilies I'm afraid.

My comments were only tongue in cheek.

Oh that explains it then - maybe you're not aware that posting from your phone it all comes across as just cheek...;)

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

No one benefits when a thread is derailed and we get people leaving and not posting because they do not want to hear the same stuff over and over.

.

Ain't that the truth...

CDfm

Lots of people love history.

So really if we are not being nice to one another it puts newbies and lurkers off posting. An etiquette thing really .

Bannasidhe

I am one of those professional historians CDfm referred to and I must admit I have recently restricted myself to 'lurking' rather than posting - due mainly to the amount of, quite frankly, utter nonsense being posted as historical 'fact' - usually with no supporting evidence whatsoever - and in the few cases where such evidence is presented it is from a highly suspect secondary source.
I am also amused at the levels of mistrust aimed at so called revisionists (BTW - apparently we are now at the Neo-Revisionist stage of historical writing). ALL historians are by their very nature 'revisionists' - they reassess/revise what has been written in the accepted historiography according to new information/interpretations. The opposite of this revisionist approach would be the Regurgitators!

So - what exactly is the role of the historian?
We sift through the available information and attempt to determine what happened according to the evidence. I tell my students that the closest analogy would be CSI - we look at the evidence (documents, architecture, art, artefacts and facts) and construct a scenario based on this evidence. Primary source documents etc are really simply witness statements - and witnesses often lie or omit that which shows them in a poor light. As for 'facts - it a term, I for one, would be wary of as there are actually precious few - and usually they are dates - e.g - Elizabeth I died in 1603 =FACT. England defeated the Spanish Armada = an interpretation. Indeed the evidence would suggest the weather plus Phillip II's micro managing and downright snobbery had more to do with the Armadas destruction that any action taken by Elizabeth = also an interpretation.

Of course, as human beings, we all have deep seated cultural prejudices which impact on our interpretations - sometimes unconsciously sometimes not. This is why it is essential for the historian to cite their sources - some (as in the controversy surrounding the work of the late Peter Hart) fail/refuse to do this. This makes his work more akin to reportage than historiography - historians cannot and must not protect their sources and must be prepared to defend their interpretation of the evidence against those who would differ.

Nor is it the role of the historian to judge - we must strive to be as objective as possible. It is not our job to say Hitler was a bad man - it is our job to uncover and illuminate what he did, how he did it - and attempt to work out why he did it - using the evidence as our guide, not personal opinion.

At the moment there is a small but growing movement within Irish, Scottish and Welsh historiography which is challenging the accepted national histories in particular its treatment of their respective indigenous cultures.

In the case of Irish historiography UCC is at the forefront with the work of Ken Nicholls, Dave Edwards and Denise Murray - other important scholars would include Katherine Simms (TCD), Bernie Cunningham (RIA), Gillian Kenny (UCD) and Chris Maginnis (Fordham) - all of these scholars are using Gaelic primary sources to challenge what they perceive as an Anglocentric bias in Irish historiography which portrays Gaelic culture as 'uncivilised' and therefore lesser. Murray, in particular, is aiming at an Gaelo-centric interpretation which examines the Tudor expansion from the perspective of those being threatened with cultural extinction rather then from the perspective of those doing the threatening as is currently the norm. However, this work is intended to sit alongside the current work as an alternative viewpoint - not replace it as an orthodoxy.

For a work of historiography to be worthy of the name it must firmly based on evidence, make its sources verifiable, be open to challenge, and seen to be objective.
It must also avoid theorising beyond what the evidence can support - so while one may conjecture to an extent - any such conjecture must be clearly stated and never stray too far from that all important evidence.


For example -
We know that Gaelic Ireland was aware of homosexuality and can conjecture that as a society it had little issue with it - the evidence is that the only extant mention of male homosexuality in the Brehon legal texts (see Fergus Kelly's Guide to Early Irish Law) states that a woman may divorce her husband if he is unable to sexually satisfy her due to being homosexual - if he knew of his homosexuality prior to the marriage and failed to declare it there were serious financial penalties. There appears to be no other 'law' dealing with homosexuality so we can conjecture there was no societal disapproval - however, that is according to available evidence.
However, to extrapolate from this and theorise that Gaelic Ireland was devoid of homophobia or, indeed, that lesbianism was non-existent (as it is not specifically mentioned) would be stretching the evidence too far.

Finally a word on secondary sources - these are other people's interpretations of the evidence available to them - that is all.

Fratton Fred

Bannasidhe, thanks for your informative post. It always amazes me what information historians sift through and the lengths they go to locate credible sources.

It is difficult though for someone with an interest in history, but not a passion for, to go to those lengths to prove a point.

There is a tendancy on here take a lot of what we read on the internet as gospel which is probably a big mistake, do you have any advice on how to sort the wheat from the chaff fairly easy? Are there any pointers as to what is made up and what is fact based?