Counterfactual history- Does it have a place on the History forum?

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

....

But why is this so important to you? Why are we endlessly going around this topic - making points and counter points, with charges of 'you don't like inquiry' etc being thrown in for good measure - as if it were going to impact the Forum when now I learn it's just an exercise in futility....

If this is your view then you have not properly read my explanations. The thread is a genuine request for views from forum users for their opinions. I do not see how you then interpret this as "an exercise in futility".

MarchDub wrote: »

Well to quote what you posted:

I didn't read the entire Lynch thread but the question was not what would have happened under differing conditions i.e. if Lynch had a bigger army by planned recruitment or if Ireland were able to make a deal with overseas help and was that feasible etc. but what would have happened if he decided to go ahead under the exact conditions of the time as he himself actually proposed he might do and many of us were under that impression, so it was a situation based on historic fact. In other words, his decision was the issue, but not the condition or facts of the case. So no that is not a genuine case of counter factual history as none of the supporting facts were posed as changing as far as I can see. It was just a debate about Lynch's decision based on the actual historic conditions of the time.

This is a bizarre explanation. The thread was 'If Lynch invaded' not 'Could Lynch have invaded.

Did Lynch invade? Answer = no.
Thus "if Lynch invaded"= counterfactual (because he did not invade).

What is your point in trying to claim this thread is not counterfactual- Are you saying that counterfactual history is new on this forum?

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If this is your view then you have not properly read my explanations. The thread is a genuine request for views from forum users for their opinions. I do not see how you then interpret this as "an exercise in futility".


This is a bizarre explanation. The thread was 'If Lynch invaded' not 'Could Lynch have invaded.

Did Lynch invade? Answer = no.
Thus "if Lynch invaded"= counterfactual (because he did not invade).

What is your point in trying to claim this thread is not counterfactual- Are you saying that counterfactual history is new on this forum?

Jonnie you pushed and pushed to get my OPINION on the Lynch - you got it , you don't like it and now you have your argument full blown going. I am going no further with this absolute nonsense with you. It is childish in the extreme and frankly as a mod I think you ought to know and behave better. But apparently you don't or won't. All you seem to want to do is it make points, counter any counter points and what, win some phantom debating points?

You asked for opinions - you got them but do you just accept that? no, you then you come back and say, well I don't like these opinions, what about, what about???

I refuse to engage any further in this yes, trolling, - my points stand as I made them.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is a bizarre explanation. The thread was 'If Lynch invaded' not 'Could Lynch have invaded.

Did Lynch invade? Answer = no.
Thus "if Lynch invaded"= counterfactual (because he did not invade).

What is your point in trying to claim this thread is not counterfactual- Are you saying that counterfactual history is new on this forum?

The other thread was about a documentary about Jack Lynch, as Taoiseach, considering the option and the reasons for his decision not to invade.

So how can it be counterfactual when it was based on actual event's when Lynch weighed up the option's and outcomes.

The thread is about users agreeing or not with the documentary -as in a a review of the programe and then a discussion about the decision's made by Lynch.

So it concerned a real event.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Jonnie you pushed and pushed to get my OPINION on the Lynch - you got it , you don't like it and now you have your argument full blown going. I am going no further with this absolute nonsense with you. It is childish in the extreme and frankly as a mod I think you ought to know and behave better. But apparently you don't or won't. All you seem to want to do is it make points, counter any counter points and what, win some phantom debating points?

You asked for opinions - you got them but do you just accept that? no, you then you come back and say, well I don't like these opinions, what about, what about???

I refuse to engage any further in this yes, trolling, - my points stand as I made them.

Now that's counterfactual

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Jonnie you pushed and pushed to get my OPINION on the Lynch - you got it , you don't like it and now you have your argument full blown going. I am going no further with this absolute nonsense with you. It is childish in the extreme and frankly as a mod I think you ought to know and behave better. But apparently you don't or won't. All you seem to want to do is it make points, counter any counter points and what, win some phantom debating points?

You asked for opinions - you got them but do you just accept that? no, you then you come back and say, well I don't like these opinions, what about, what about???

I refuse to engage any further in this yes, trolling, - my points stand as I made them.

Fair enough. I would make the point though that it was you who pushed me to become involved in the discussion (if you do not accept this then look over the past 2 pages of this thread). Furthermore when opinions are expressed that are different to ones own, it does not automatically follow that this is 'trolling'.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

The other thread was about a documentary about Jack Lynch, as Taoiseach, considering the option and the reasons for his decision not to invade.

So how can it be counterfactual when it was based on actual event's when Lynch weighed up the option's and outcomes.

The thread is about users agreeing or not with the documentary -as in a a review of the programe and then a discussion about the decision's made by Lynch.

So it concerned a real event.

You and MD are getting caught up in this one thread (debating it further seems pointless to me however you can decide yourself if continuing this is achieving anything).

The initial point was that counterfactual history threads have existed in this forum before now.

Can we agree on that?

MarchDub

There you go jonnie- still trying to 'win' your points. Sad...

I'm off of this ...

Gee Bag

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I have not yet seen the "what if my Aunt had balls" type thread, i.e. being so far fetched that it was not a likely or possible conclusion being discussed.

I'd regard this thread as one...........

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056635976

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

There you go jonnie- still trying to 'win' your points. Sad...

I'm off of this ...

We are all adults here MD- no need for 'points' or games. You have to accept it and get on with things if people do not agree with your point of view.

Gee Bag

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You have to accept it and get on with things if people do not agree with your point of view.

Same applies to you Jonnie.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You and MD are getting caught up in this one thread (debating it further seems pointless to me however you can decide yourself if continuing this is achieving anything).

The initial point was that counterfactual history threads have existed in this forum before now.

Can we agree on that?

There is a difference in opinion over what you are calling counterfactual history and what other's understand it to be.

I usually defer to the professional historian's on those item's and there was quite a good referenced crash course on it right here.

EDIT- and there are a few issue's on factual history that some of us are trying to get cleared up too.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would make the point though that it was you who pushed me to become involved in the discussion (if you do not accept this then look over the past 2 pages of this thread).

As a mod I expected you to give better direction that you did on this thread - the issue that I asked you to clarify as the OP and mod was what was the point in this thread?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We are all adults here MD- no need for 'points' or games. You have to accept it and get on with things if people do not agree with your point of view.

And before you claim the higher moral ground here, acceptance goes both ways - and I saw very little of your acceptance to anything on this thread which did not support your views. I would suggest in future that you refrain from introducing opinion threads where you yourself so obviously have a dog in the race and don't want to 'lose' the argument or can't accept that others might not agree with you.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

There is a difference in opinion over what you are calling counterfactual history and what other's understand it to be.

I usually defer to the professional historian's on those item's and there was quite a good referenced crash course on it right here.

EDIT- and there are a few issue's on factual history that some of us are trying to get cleared up too.

Excellent point - and something that has been missed by most....

Reekwind

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

[Edit: Not worth it. If people don't want to engage then they shouldn't]

CDfm wrote:

There is a difference in opinion over what you are calling counterfactual history and what other's understand it to be

I think it's pretty damning that at, what, six pages into the thread there is still no agreement on just what counterfactal history is. It is absolutely absurd that at this stage we still have people dismissing the approach as "rubbish discussions based on fiction passing as history"

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

And before you claim the higher moral ground here, acceptance goes both ways - and I saw very little of your acceptance to anything on this thread which did not support your views. I would suggest in future that you refrain from introducing opinion threads where you yourself so obviously have a dog in the race and don't want to 'lose' the argument or can't accept that others might not agree with you.

For clarity I would point out that you have misrepresented my opinion with your "dog in the race" comment. My opinion is stated in post 77 and I would prefer it to be quoted rather than interpreted as this would prevent any confusion.

When people cannot bring themselves to admit that counterfactual threads are not new to the forum (as above) it tells me that this discussion is going nowhere for the moment. Thus I will leave it to others to express their views as was my intention in the first place.

conor.hogan.2

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

CDfm wrote: »

Are you assuming that would happen using history as an academic discipline as a benchmark.

Have the mods clarified that ?

This is all hypothetical, clearly as this thread is.

My definition of CF/what if would be allowed in this forum now anyway, I am almost certain.

slowburner

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

MarchDub wrote: »

I think this thread is an excellent example of when you pose a question based on opinions and ask people to just join in with no aim whatsoever at any resolution - we are just going around in circles, with a blatant twisting of what has actually been said in order to what, win debating points?

I believe it is called discourse, an essential form of enquiry.

It's pathetic nonsense...

What I have said about the issue is on the record - trying to turn what I and others said who 'opposed ' the notion of counter factual history ON THE FORUM into some imagined attack on genuine inquiry is patently fallacious - and frankly Slowburner you are being hugely disingenuous in doing so.

For the last time.
I question your reluctance to tolerate any form of enquiry - outside the basic strictures of historical fact.
That's all, nothing disingenuous about it.

CDfm

Reekwind wrote: »

[Edit: Not worth it. If people don't want to engage then they shouldn't]

I think it's pretty damning that at, what, six pages into the thread there is still no agreement on just what counterfactal history is. It is absolutely absurd that at this stage we still have people dismissing the approach as "rubbish discussions based on fiction passing as history"

Maybe it's because there isn't agreement on how ordinary history is handled that when you get a more sophisticated technique ,which this is,that you can encounter a problem.

Your fascinating and succinct summary of Carr ,right down to his reappraisal of Stalin & Trotsky, was a pleasure to read.

Maybe if there was a greater sense of community ?.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

This is all hypothetical, clearly as this thread is.

My definition of CF/what if would be allowed in this forum now anyway, I am almost certain.

As a historical tool it makes sense to me as my primary degree is in economics and changing a variable as an analytic tool is something that I am ,of course, comfortable with.

In Irish history, you have the revisionist debate and the traditional romantic nationalist approach is deep rooted and this makes history difficult without an approach that lean's on history as a discipline. It should give freedom to discuss emotive subject's retrospectively and rationally.

So yes , the technique is great when properly used but that is not what is being discussed, what is being discussed is how it would be applied here.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

For clarity I would point out that you have misrepresented my opinion with your "dog in the race" comment. My opinion is stated in post 77 and I would prefer it to be quoted rather than interpreted as this would prevent any confusion.

When people cannot bring themselves to admit that counterfactual threads are not new to the forum (as above) it tells me that this discussion is going nowhere for the moment. Thus I will leave it to others to express their views as was my intention in the first place.

slowburner wrote: »

I believe it is called discourse, an essential form of enquiry.For the last time.
I question your reluctance to tolerate any form of enquiry - outside the basic strictures of historical fact.
That's all, nothing disingenuous about it.

MarchDub
Closed Account

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,681
Adverts | Friends

Well that's a reply.

slowburner

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

slowburner wrote: »

...I question your reluctance to tolerate any form of enquiry - outside the basic strictures of historical fact...

MarchDub
Closed Account

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,681
Adverts | Friends

That's a shame, but it is what it is.

Dades

I haven't seen such asshattery in this forum for a long time.

If a mod (or any poster, for that matter) wants to gauge public opinion on a subject relevant to the forum they should be able to do so without being subject to assumption-led hysteria.

CDfm

As a historian MarchDub is the real deal. Lot's of academic's just pass thru, MD stuck around.

indioblack

CDfm wrote: »

As a historian MarchDub is the real deal. Lot's of academic's just pass thru, MD stuck around.

Pity - he may return.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub
Closed Account

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,681
Adverts | Friends

This is unfortunate. Personally I enjoyed MD's contribution and He will be welcomed back should he choose to return.

slowburner

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

I agree.

Rebelheart

Pity to see MarchDub has closed his/her account. S/he was one of the more articulate people here.

conor.hogan.2

No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.

CDfm wrote: »

So yes , the technique is great when properly used but that is not what is being discussed, what is being discussed is how it would be applied here.

It would be applied as close to how it is academically. The mods would have the final say as with everything.

Ozymandiaz

Counter-factual history is pure speculation. It is about as useful as counter-factual science or counter-factual evidence in a court of law. It is self-indulgent chrystal ball gazing.

History is about the past as it actaully happened, or as far as we can establish it. It is difficult enough to determine in itself without resorting to imagined 'what ifs'!