Dr. Martin Luther King. Never Forget.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
he would be as reviled as Sharpton and Jackson by those on the right.

You say that as if they don't deserve to be reviled.

But anyway, Like I said the man was kind enough to provide such topics to troll about not the least of which is the plagiarist streak present in most of his work.

[SlowwHand]

Che learns his history from a book authored by a fantasty historian, much like MrFun.
You know, Angela Davis, salt of the earth.
Chinese persecution and American Indian slavery ignored.
Crap like that.

[MrFun]

Slowwy -- you need to take a course in historiography.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun
historiography.

Thats not really a word (even for an american). You're makin it up as you go!

[MrFun]

It's a real word.



Studying the history of scholarly history is fascinating.

[SpencerH]

So you're gonna make interpretations of their interpretations. Its knda like an engine without a transmission. It spins and spins but nothin much happens.

[MrFun]

Historians cannot even begin to understand their profession, unless they learn how their profession evolved over time, and reached to the point that it is at now.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

But that seems useless unless one studies how the profession of understanding the profession of history is understood and how it evolves.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Where?

His book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community , 1967

[SpencerH]

Why should historians need to understand their profession? It would seem more useful to understand people. Churchill did pretty well without a course in histoioioiography.

[MrFun]

How can you succeed in your profession -- whatever that may be -- without understanding your own profession??

That's like saying biologists can become successful biologists without learning biology.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You know, Angela Davis, salt of the earth.

You aren't good enough to even mention her name.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun
That's like saying biologists can become successful biologists without learning biology.

That's not the same as "Studying the history of scholarly history" or Historians cannot even begin to understand their profession, unless they learn how their profession evolved over time, and reached to the point that it is at now."

A more relevant analogy is 'biologists cant be succesful biologists without learning the history of biology'.

Which is, of course, hogwash.