Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No, of course I think you should compare, human nature hasn't changed, but it must be done very carefully. It's just that it can and has become very dangerous with bad comparisons…especially bad comparisons that have become mainstream now in some history teaching. It's like homosexuality in Greek history and comparing it to today. The Greek's weren't about gay rights and gay marriage. So to say because the Greeks accepted it we should too is wrong, IMO. I've read some who compare Sparta to the Nazis. I think history should emphasize and explain why something worked for civilization at that time, and if you have to or want to compare, then explain why it can or can't work for civilization now. This is just my opinon. If you think I'm off my rocker, please tell me. I'm just glad you said it was a sub-heading.
Now that you stated it should be kept as a sub-heading, then no it's not confusing. Speaking of nutcase historians, it's the one's who compare soomething from today with something that happened centuries ago who are usually the worse. I know there are some VDH fans here, but when he said the Peloponnesian War was like the War on Terror, I was like “huh?”
What do you mean by parallel? Isn't there a danger of projecting the cultural/societal conditions of one era to a different era? If so, how would you avoid that?
They probably knew he was going to be a good QB, but I don't think anyone ever imagined he would become one of NFL's all-time best.
It's a fan-owned team, and this is how to get in on that. I am now in all legal terms one of those owners. And if I put “NFL owner” in my online dating profiles, it wouldn't be a lie. I can see it now: "OK, OK, I admit I'm not really a 26 yr old, 6'3, 230 lb professional rugby player. But I do own the Green Bay Packers."
$250. Purchased it through the Packers website. They made it very clear it is not an investment stock.
Maybe slight sarcasm. If I understood you correctly, you're basically saying it's only younger or newer historians who are nutcases. I've read some older stuff that I thought was kind of, let's say, strange.
Most of these are guesses1. Bush II2. Reagan3. Nixon4. Bush II5. ??6. ??7. Bush I8. ??9. Nixon10. Clinton
The media is going to try to push this OWS crap as historical even though it wasn't. The only thing they accomplished was making a clear demarcation of the Right and the Left and showing how and why the Left fails.
