Re: "Historical" Clubs


In a message dated 5/22/2006 11:35:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
thompson@... writes:

This is fine, but let's see if this matters for how freight cars
are painted at museums. History is not science, nor is it "facts;" the
famous analogy is that an accumulation of facts is like a pile of
bricks: it's not a house. History makes A house (each historian will
put the bricks together differently). But that is not the topic of what
was said so far. What was said so far, as I understood it, was about
authentic bricks. I don't see how you can, for example, paint or modify
an artifact like a freight car in a way which is not representative of
its origins, and still use it as a brick. Otherwise, bricks are only
what historians choose: they can invent bricks to please themselves.
That might sit well with Foucault but not with most people.
I think you are confusing museum practice with the practice of
history. They are of course allied, or should be, but do not always
have the same goals. Playing games with question marks around "truth"
doesn't help the discussion, though perhaps it would get you some
applause in that room at an academic meeting.


You are never going to win this. From the previous comments it is very
clear that the revisionist historian philosophy is being espoused. That is the
'historians" are free to reshape the data in any manner as long as it
supports their hypothesis. Draw a conclusion and make the facts fit the
conclusion. The antithesis of the scientific method. And those of us who care that
facts be facts which are not subject to interpretation but rather allow one to
understand the entire picture recognize this philosophy which is rampant
among today's alleged historians. It is back dated social engineering that
allows what is politically correct today (i.e. expedient) to change the facts of
the past.

Rich Orr

Join to automatically receive all group messages.