Random Chatter about General History

[T.wa.T]

Even alot of the documentaries on the History channel are flawed because of lack of facts or there is some hidden agenda only showing one side. Depending on the topic of course. Docs about American history are usually very skewed to make us look the good guys, that's boring.

[Ace Nova]

Even alot of the documentaries on the History channel are flawed because of lack of facts or there is some hidden agenda only showing one side. Depending on the topic of course. Docs about American history are usually very skewed to make us look the good guys, that's boring.

What? The Patriots/Colonists who fought for our freedom (aka a bunch of fucking rebels) aren't the good guys!?

[DieselDaisy]

Even alot of the documentaries on the History channel are flawed because of lack of facts or there is some hidden agenda only showing one side. Depending on the topic of course. Docs about American history are usually very skewed to make us look the good guys, that's boring.

The History Channel's War of 1812 documentary - this is from about seven years ago - was a real potboiler.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Well biased is something that cannot be helped when you study history. It is from the sources and you can't help but put personal opinion. If you want to avoid it, just read a book. Documentaries are for people who cannot bother to open a book and have a shorter attention span, so they have to keep the viewer interested.

And with The Bible, what better way to keep the viewer interested than battles and hot girls?

[DieselDaisy]

Documentaries are for people who cannot bother to open a book and have a shorter attention span, so they have to keep the viewer interested.

Can you really apply that statement to a series such as the World at War?

Edited January 18, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[John Bonham]

History is a kind of detective work. You have read everything. Read everything, watch everything, just consume everything you can on the subject, and then try to draw some reasonable conclusions.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Documentaries are for people who cannot bother to open a book and have a shorter attention span, so they have to keep the viewer interested.

Can you really apply that statement to a series such as the World at War?

You've seen it?

I think they did an excellent job telling the history of the war. If you watch the introduction by Jeremy Isaacs, he explains that people at the time only knew a fraction of the Second World War. They mostly know the Western Front. Fall of France, Battle of Britain, then jump to 1944 with D-Day and a year later the war is over. This was when the Soviets started telling their side of the story and people were re-introduced to the horrors of the Eastern Front. Before that, Western historians dismissed the Soviet side as propaganda and German sources at the time did not want to admit the Russians got the better of them which pissed off military leaders such as Zhukov. But by the early 1970's the truth started to come out and made its way into The World at War. Still only a fraction of the story was told, it was not until the 1990's they started opening the archives and translated everything into English. For a more up to date account, see Russia's War: Blood Upon the Snow. Probably the most complete and up to date undertaking we can get on The Eastern Front.

It was a mammoth undertaking. 27 episodes, each an hour long, hundreds of people interviewed.

[Tater Totts]

History is a kind of detective work. You have read everything. Read everything, watch everything, just consume everything you can on the subject, and then try to draw some reasonable conclusions.

And then you find something new on the subject a few months later and throw your conclusions out the window.

[John Bonham]

You can't just read history books, you have to look at other contextual sources. Especially if we're talking about the history of a pre-mass communication era.

[OmarBradley]

You can't just read history books, you have to look at other contextual sources. Especially if we're talking about the history of a pre-mass communication era.

Yes, but you have to be careful when reading primary sources. They cannot always be taken as historical truth (especially pre-modern era), implications are much easier to find than historical truths. Translation matters to, it can change the meaning of words (to the unknowing reader). For general historical background, I really think academically reviewed books + textbooks is enough. Though plenty of primary sources are digitally available online for those who are interested, some of them are in print too, but why pay for something when you can get it free on the internet (please don't extrapolate this sentence into referring to anything other than historical primary source material ). In fact, there's plenty of primary source material that can only be found online, since the original documents are kept in private/safe locations, or they were simply never mass produced for public exposure. William of Tyre's writings and some of Clausewitz's works come to mind in not being accessible for a reasonable price in person.

[John Bonham]

I just really like background.

For example: These days, with digital photography, people crop-out all the stuff in the margins that they don't need.

But, when you look at an old photo, you can see what kind of car they drove, what kind of trees were growing there, what style window trim they used, what their servants wore, etc. etc.

[Georgy Zhukov]

And you have to do your best to step into the mindset of the past. You have to figure out how people have felt at the time of the source written. And most of all, never think of ourselves as better than the people of the past. And never compare modern events to before. Such as, saying Saddam Hussein was the worse dictator since Hitler. A popular phrase but stupid because Hitler and Hussein were too different men, similar in some ways but different.

Not sure if I am getting it across. Mind processing.

[John Bonham]

And of course, any time you compare anything to Hitler, you are sure to lose the argument.

[Tater Totts]

And you have to do your best to step into the mindset of the past. You have to figure out how people have felt at the time of the source written. And most of all, never think of ourselves as better than the people of the past. And never compare modern events to before. Such as, saying Saddam Hussein was the worse dictator since Hitler. A popular phrase but stupid because Hitler and Hussein were too different men, similar in some ways but different.

Not sure if I am getting it across. Mind processing.

As a recent History graduate you're coming across very well, so much time was spent contextualizing every single thing I read while doing my degree.

[Georgy Zhukov]

And you have to do your best to step into the mindset of the past. You have to figure out how people have felt at the time of the source written. And most of all, never think of ourselves as better than the people of the past. And never compare modern events to before. Such as, saying Saddam Hussein was the worse dictator since Hitler. A popular phrase but stupid because Hitler and Hussein were too different men, similar in some ways but different.

Not sure if I am getting it across. Mind processing.

As a recent History graduate you're coming across very well, so much time was spent contextualizing every single thing I read while doing my degree.

What did you study? I think my problem was that I could not pick a period.

Not many people are into Modern History and everything since 2000 is a mess as Bonham said, Mass communication but this is a gold mine for historians because they get to have the opportunity to sort out the mess and make sense of it.

War is a good place to start, the result of everything that went wrong. When I did some research on The War On Terror, I got in trouble with a lot of people. Not authorities, family, friends, even teachers. Told me I was being unpatriotic.

[Tater Totts]

And you have to do your best to step into the mindset of the past. You have to figure out how people have felt at the time of the source written. And most of all, never think of ourselves as better than the people of the past. And never compare modern events to before. Such as, saying Saddam Hussein was the worse dictator since Hitler. A popular phrase but stupid because Hitler and Hussein were too different men, similar in some ways but different.

Not sure if I am getting it across. Mind processing.

As a recent History graduate you're coming across very well, so much time was spent contextualizing every single thing I read while doing my degree.

What did you study? I think my problem was that I could not pick a period.

Not many people are into Modern History and everything since 2000 is a mess as Bonham said, Mass communication but this is a gold mine for historians because they get to have the opportunity to sort out the mess and make sense of it.

War is a good place to start, the result of everything that went wrong. When I did some research on The War On Terror, I got in trouble with a lot of people. Not authorities, family, friends, even teachers. Told me I was being unpatriotic.

Bit of a mix really, the modules I did which counted towards my degree were on the Cold War, Bill of Rights, C19 American West, C20 American West, California, Medieval Popular Religion and Heresy and Death in Art. So my interests were certainly towards American History.

[OmarBradley]

War is a good place to start, the result of everything that went wrong. When I did some research on The War On Terror, I got in trouble with a lot of people. Not authorities, family, friends, even teachers. Told me I was being unpatriotic.

Shame on them.

Bit of a mix really, the modules I did which counted towards my degree were on the Cold War, Bill of Rights, C19 American West, C20 American West, California, Medieval Popular Religion and Heresy and Death in Art. So my interests were certainly towards American History.

Cold War is one of my specialties, specifically in relation to the war in Vietnam. Also done a good deal of Crusades/high middle ages which should have some decent overlaps with Medieval Popular Religion.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Middle Ages is fun when you know where to start. I always say start with Caesar for some background but really start with Diocletian and Constantine (The Great). Traditionally it is at "The Fall of Rome" but that is so vague that is better to start with events leading up to it.

[magisme]

[DieselDaisy]

I did a degree in History but with a diploma in classics so my history degree was tailoured around the Ancient Greeks and Romans, Pericles' Athens, the Roman Republic etc. (Classics include significent other aspects of the humanities outside history, e.g. architecture, theatre, philosophy, linguistics etc). Outside of the classics, I also covered the 16th century Reformation, the English Civil War, slave-trade, French Revolution and Boney.

I did so much 20th century history at high school and college that I tried to avoid it later on! It is my belief that the British curriculum is very, Hitlercentric.

[Tater Totts]

Agreed on that one, think they're changing it up a little bit but my Secondary school History curriculum from year 9 looked like this.

Year 9: Second World War, Germany, Russia and the Holocaust

Year 10: America from 1920s to 1970s including Civil Rights, Depression and the New Deal.

Year 11: First World War, Homefront.

Year 12: European Dictatorships, specifically Russia. Germany and Italy. The Stuarts.

Year 13: More European Dictatorships, mainly focusing on Germany and the Holocaust. Cromwell and the English Civil War.

Needless to say by the time I got to University and could chose my own modules I was sick to death of Wars and Germany so I tried to branch out and do some modules and periods I had never studied before and really enjoyed them. In fact I fell in love with American West coast history during those three years.

[DieselDaisy]

Exact same story. When I was doing my GCSE in high school it was causes for the First World War, Nazi Party and Holocaust. Then when I did my A Levels it was, Russian Revolution, the Nazi party (again) and the 19th century workhouses and the New Poor Law. A fairly dreary bunch of subjects when I think of it; I sometimes wonder why I took the subject up at a higher level?

[Tater Totts]

From what I've heard they've worked hard to change up the curriculum now, while the World Wars are present there is far less emphasis on them and you don't study them for as many years as in years previously.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I want to get The Unknown War. An American produce documentary series on the Eastern Front. Seems to be in the style of The World At War. Hosted by Burt Lancaster and it was made in full cooperation with The Soviet Union (detente is a wonderful thing) and in result it was sympathetic. It was pulled from the air after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

[Georgy Zhukov]

The Huns were cool.