Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One doesn't achieve the rank of high priest in the Mormon Church without being devout. So lukewarm he is not.
I did not know that. Perhaps it was based on his otherwise high political profile? I dunno.
Phid, how is writing about about other people writing history historically worthy in its own right?Historiography is not historians writing about history, it is historians writing about the ways other historians wrote history. It is just about as pure a method of navel gazing as considering the sound of one-hand clapping, which Bart Simpson showed us long ago, it is also helpfully demonstrated below. (if i managed to embed the video code properly)
Oh, I think it can be very historical worthy, but probably moreso for scholars as they advance in their fields. It seems pretty important to me that the way of thinking of scholars be highlighted in order to know why a particular course of study is taken. Example - have you ever read the work of Percy Ernst Shramm or Ernst Hartwig Kantorowicz on the Middle Ages? In Inventing the Middle Ages, Norman Cantor places those two authors within the political climate of Germany in the first half of the twentieth century, including their belief in Hitler as a similar figure to Otto III or Frederick II, in their minds. That's the kind of stuff I would want to know. Is a historian writing while dangling a finger in modern political activism? Or is he writing having been taught to research in a particular way? Bias, political leaning, or school of thought are important when we consider historical scholarship, IMO.Again, historians are participating in history by writing about history, so they are an appropriate subject of study. If it's a work in "navel gazing" and therefore something that should not be done, what would we be left with? We'd be left with a bunch of historical writing that we are unable to weigh properly. The study of history, therefore, would be that much less productive.
Yes I did. He's a brainwashed Mormon cultist. That should more than disqualify him.
I've discussed with you your feelings about Mormonism as being a disqualifier for office, so I don't need to revisit that per se. However, I have not actually heard Romney talk about his feelings on religion. We all know that some people are Christian, Jewish, etc. but are lukewarm about it. In other words, you might not know it if the topic did not come up. What if Romney were a lukewarm Mormon? Would this change your opinion about him, or is any Mormon - from diehard believer to the weakest of worshippers - unfit for office in your opinion?
That's what I noticed as well. I pretty much have to plug mine in everyday. It also helps to have a car charger.You can use an app like Juice Defender which improves the life of a charge by turning off wifi/data when you're not using it. I used it for a while but found that it interfered with my music listening on Pandora. I believe there are ways around it with the paid version. May be worth checking out.https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.latedroid.juicedefender&hl=en
Alright, then what would studying choice A be called? Would it simply be “the study of historians from nineteenth century America” (i.e. historians who study a large range of historical areas, from ancient Greece to the French Revolution)? Choice B, then, would the be study of historiography – that is, historians, mostly probably from the twentieth century, who study a specific set of years (e.g. 1800-1825) in American history.Incidentally, I was trying to wrap my head around the sportswriting analogy and I was having a difficult time, until I realized why. Whereas historians writing about history are actually participating in history and can rightly become the subject of historical writing in the future, sportswriters aren't actually competing in sports. Writing about sports is not a sport in itself, but writing about history can be a historically-noteworthy activity.
That is interesting, isn't it? I'm not sure which of the Apollo missions was the last to reach the moon, but it was sometimes during the missions of the late-60s/early-70s. I wonder what Neil Armstrong thought of our inability or lack of desire to return to the moon after all these decades.In honor of this thread, I am digging up some of these old threads on space exploration:The new and exciting field of....space archaeology?Apollo moon theories and responsesReactions of the Apollo 8 mission in 1968 Early conception of space exploration
Very unlikely date. While the Gospels do suggest that Jesus was about 33 years old when he was crucified, this does not lead to a date of AD 33 because Jesus was not born in the "year 0." In fact, there is no year 0 on the calendar. It simply moves directly from 1 BC to AD 1 (or 1 BCE to 1 CE).It's virtually certain Jesus was born between the years 6 and 4 BC because Herod the Great was still alive at his birth, and Herod died in 4 BC. Before his death, he had ordered all male children up to two years of age executed in Bethlehem. Hence, the Nativity was between 6-4 BC.Assuming Jesus died at age 33, as the Gospels say, that would place the year of the crucifixion at AD 27-29. Fixing an exact year is historically impossible.
The dates you give (and the reasons) are similar to what I have always thought as well.
Are you talking to me or Ski? 🙂I'm guessing you're saying that because of the similar WP layout to my site. I noticed that too. But no, I assure you that it's not mine. I actually think mine is a bit more refined-looking than this site, even though I don't have as much content (yet).
Today is the anniversary of the Mona Lisa theft.http://www.history.com/news/10-famous-art-heists-slideshow
I have a question. If you say that your area is the historiography of early nineteenth century America, does that mean that a) you study historians from nineteenth century America, or b) you study historians who study nineteenth century America?
I can't remember offhand if he had any students studying directly under him (probably so), but even if not there would have been plenty of other artists who saw his works and copied them in one way or another. This is what is more than likely what happened with the painting in Scotland. Leonardo had a reputation in the early sixteenth century, so much so that he went to France to paint for Frances I. Others therefore would have wanted to copy his style.
“Wine Is Spilt; Some Tears Ensue”http://www.grocerywine.net/2009/06/most-expensive-broken-bottle-of-wine-or-one-more-reason-to-drink-your-wine-as-soon-as-you-get-home/
I wonder if, after the bottle started leaking, they saved the wine still contained in the bottle and drank up. If that were my bottle, I probably would have!
