- This topic has 4 voices and 23 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am now officially confused.If you want to get straight to the point then you should probably pick an easily defensible thesis. I am not saying punt it, I am saying you should pick a thesis that is amenable to yes or no answers and not open to a lot of quibbling or arguing about what they ancient sources say. Anything too complex and you wont have time or space in the paper to properly address all the aspects of your argument.
I thing I just need to keep my tendency for the latter in check. I don't want to be an 'activist' historian. But, man, there's just so much crap out there nowadays that needs to be disproven. “Socialism is good” “Colonialism is evil”
I thing I just need to keep my tendency for the latter in check. I don't want to be an 'activist' historian. But, man, there's just so much crap out there nowadays that needs to be disproven. "Socialism is good" "Colonialism is evil"
Now you've got me confused. What in the world are you reading about ancient Greek history that is so biased? I realize there is bias in history and we harp on this sometimes, but in reality I think it represents a minority of what is out there...and it's also going to be more prevalent in historical topics which have ramifications for today (e.g. it's much less likely that we would see such bias in books about the Visigoths than in books about the 20th century women's suffrage movement). There should be plenty to choose from on ancient Greek which stays far away from glaring bias. If worse comes to worse, choose books from pre-1960.
Phid, this isn't specifically about Greece. I was only using them as an example. BUT
What in the world are you reading about ancient Greek history that is so biased?
There are those who claim the Greeks weren't so important for Western Civilization.
Never, I repeat, NEVER, make your concessions at the end of your paper. Get them out of the way early, and then build from there. Do not leave your reader with lingering doubts about your thesis at the point you are trying to seal the deal. You will have undone what you did for 9 previous pages. 🙁
I dont think that is what he is getting at Don. He is trying to figure out where to put competing views within the structure of the paper itself. I get the impression he is not talking about making concessions of the strength of his paper. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this Ski.
I agree with Don. I think hitting any opposing views should be done early (not in the intro though). I don't know how to be clear, so bear with me here. My question is mainly about how much time I invest in showing another viewpoint that is in opposition to mineMy thesis is 'a' (which is clearly stated in the intro). I spend the next few paragraphs explaining why I think 'a' is correct. Somewhere I state what 'b' is and explain the supporting arguments for that. Then I proceed to show the weaknesses or maybe inconclusiveness of 'b' (how long I do this is my main question) and spend the rest of the paper on the strengths of 'a'.A VERY simple example:"A" is my thesis and spend some time supporting it with evidence. (British imperialism had a positive effect on people's lives because....)Then I mention somewhere in the paper that there is a "B" and explain it...(British imperialism forced people to deny their own culture) *keeping in mind these may very well be valid arguments.and continue with "A" being the better argument (although British imperialism did deny some peoples' culture it gave more people an opportunity at wealth) which can be explained here or already was explained earlier in the paper. If necessary, introduce more evidence.
Yeah, when I was commenting about putting weaknesses at the end I was not talking about major alternative views to one's theory that need to be presented as an integral part of the paper from the start (e.g. a current competing view). I was speaking more to possible objections which are relatively minor in scope and cannot really be presented until one's conclusion is presented at the end.
