Meinhard_X's forum posts

Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts

[QUOTE="Meinhard_X"][QUOTE="MattUD1"] Ok... I had to take a class on what it means to be an historian. It was a terrible class, only because it was taught by a very intelligent professor but one whose voice makes you fall asleep. One of our first assignments was to read two articles, one of an early historian and one of a more modern historian dealing with the Columbian Voyages and the ensuing Columbian exchanges. The more modern historian drew from histories regarding the native Americans and not just the European explorers. It also took into account vast other knowledges which are found within a liberal arts education, which by its definition is that of a broad knowledge of a multitude of subjects in order to make the individual student more knowledgable... Fidosim posted that history is 20% facts, 80% interpretation is right... but wrong for the vast majority of historical work. MattUD1

Perhaps the problem here is that I know very, very little of actual political terms. But isn't everything you you say about the "modern historian" you describe liberal? The whole idea of pluralism, and multiple perspectives seems to me to be very liberal. Aren't liberal arts colleges pretty liberal in general? The definition of liberal according to the free dictionary is "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry" I go to a liberal arts college too, this seems to describe it education curriculum very well. I wasn't agreeing with Fidosim's statistics, I know very little about those. All i said was "You do have a point. We look back at, say, the 1920s shunning the racism and sexism of the time but what are we doing today that people are going to shun our generation for? Correct does seem to be relative." I seem to agree with the people I'm arguing with... I'm obviously not communicating very well today >_>

I don't understand why people need to use terms that are used politically in describing something that should fall outside of political division. It's why I feel that phrase "History has a liberal bias." or "Life has a liberal bias." inaccurate. What I described about the modern history is certainly counter to the older historians (notably those before the 20th Century, and even into the 20th Century) yet I hesitate to use "liberal" in describing it.

I looked up liberal arts on AskOxford.com and it defined it as as pertaining to History and Literature. I then looked at liberal in regards to education and a liberal education is relating to distribution of a broad or general knowledge of a multitude of topics to an individual. I die a little inside when people say "Liberal education is teaching people to become liberals" which politicizes the entire affair. Now that phrase can also be applied to the definition and that interpretation of the phrase I quoted is one I find to be more accurate. Regarding fidosim's "statistics" that is exactly where revisionist history finds a foothold within the populace.

SubZero mentioned that History is the Science of Liberal Arts with lots of evidence gathering and some interpretation of the data when data is missing or incomplete. The total of data is then presented and discussed among historians who specialize in whichever area is being discussed and should the consensus be approving then that information is circulated into the public sphere. If anything comes up during conferencing that sheds doubt on the authenticity or methods used to research or the conclusions reached it is discussed. Revisionist history is, in my mind, equivalent to Creationisms relation to Evolution and modern biology.

Perhaps in the future historians will look upon the treatment of homosexuals with regards to differing rights in marriage. I can't speak that far into the future.

I see what you're saying about how liberal / conservative have multiple meanings and can sometimes be messy, vague terms. I'll try to be careful of that in the future. Good post... thanks for clarifying what Subzero was saying too. I didn't understand how it reltated to what fidosim was saying but now it makes sense :)
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts
1. Become fluent in German, Italian, & maybe Klingon (LOL that last one was just a joke) 2. To live in either - A giant hot air balloon OR an abandoned train - I'd fix it up, it would be pretty sweet. 3. I want to laugh in the face of danger. Hahahaha!
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts
Good pole, but there's so many Americans and Canadians here that I would have liked have them separate...
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts
Like my whole life? 1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22 ... to many to count!
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts
Gosh I haven't spent much time on System Wars, but it must be very annoying how poor people are at arguing their points. If HonkyTonkGamer (haha funny username) would actually compare it with the other libraries by listing them out as well (and listing the AA 360 games more completely this topic could have a fighting chance. Instead it's pretty much one big facepalm.
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts
[QUOTE="MattUD1"] Ok... I had to take a class on what it means to be an historian. It was a terrible class, only because it was taught by a very intelligent professor but one whose voice makes you fall asleep. One of our first assignments was to read two articles, one of an early historian and one of a more modern historian dealing with the Columbian Voyages and the ensuing Columbian exchanges. The more modern historian drew from histories regarding the native Americans and not just the European explorers. It also took into account vast other knowledges which are found within a liberal arts education, which by its definition is that of a broad knowledge of a multitude of subjects in order to make the individual student more knowledgable... Fidosim posted that history is 20% facts, 80% interpretation is right... but wrong for the vast majority of historical work.

Perhaps the problem here is that I know very, very little of actual political terms. But isn't everything you you say about the "modern historian" you describe liberal? The whole idea of pluralism, and multiple perspectives seems to me to be very liberal. Aren't liberal arts colleges pretty liberal in general? The definition of liberal according to the free dictionary is "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry" I go to a liberal arts college too, this seems to describe it education curriculum very well. I wasn't agreeing with Fidosim's statistics, I know very little about those. All i said was "You do have a point. We look back at, say, the 1920s shunning the racism and sexism of the time but what are we doing today that people are going to shun our generation for? Correct does seem to be relative." I seem to agree with the people I'm arguing with... I'm obviously not communicating very well today >_>
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts
It was fairly entertaining. Good special effects and has many of the positive things associated with Peter Jacksons films. Still it wasn't THAT good, I doubt I'll see it again.
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts
Yeah. I think it's a great phrase actually, if not very vague and unhelpful in itself .
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts

[QUOTE="Meinhard_X"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... There is nothing liberal about the history.. Its the fact that history writings from the 50's and before that were more around the ideas of bieng "conservative" then it was today.. Giving romantic light to all sorts of things that were not realistic or actual fact.. This some how transfers to it being "liberal".. Which is not the case, such a bias would try to defend one side over the other.. And from what I have read they have done none things.. The one example that seems to be constantly brought up is the Civil War.. Which the Southern conservatives believe it was for state rights and the like.. When that was not the case.. But this is no way defending the north, or some how saying South were racist red necks.. The entire nation was completely racist.. Just because you don't like seeing a dog (in their eyes) work slave labor, doesn't some how change the fact that they saw it not their equal and a dog (as in being less then human).. Its only beeing deemed as "liberal" because its battering away the hundreds of years of stereotypes, and propaganda often put forward..This kind of claim is just like the kind of claim of how science is "liberal" in supporting outlandish ideas like Evolution and Global warming even though they have the evidence and studies to prove it.

sSubZerOo

(I tried replying to other points you made but my "HTML was not well formed") This is just at your closing statement, since it seems to apply more to my argument that the other guys. (ie I never stated history was liberal..) Those ARE liberal ideas. IMO great liberal ideas. Not that conservatives can't support them. But stuff like this *could* be used to argue that education and liberalism ARE somewhat dependently related. But I'm sure Conservatism has great ideas as well, perhaps 'less scientific' (a scary phrase to our liberal minds) but it's a different world view that I'm proposing should (maybe) be presented more in high schools and colleges to provide people with a more balanced perspective.

I fail to see how the study of science or history has a political agenda as a whole.. If anything if we were to be concerned its that history of today has a CONSERVATIVE agenda, because as we know it cultural pluralism and the like has relaly only existed and seen as something to be used in recent memory.. Before this historians were fully comfortable in suggesting that the Native Americans lost because they were a morally weak, and backwards culture of people.. Education MAYBE.. But yet again what does this have to do with history and science the two most scrutinized communities out there?

It doesn't have an 'agenda', but by nature it seems to be liberal by nature. BTW I do think you're partially misinterpreting my argument, since again my main focus was the education system and I drew a few small examples from history. Zubzeros post seemed to be more historically based but I was mostly agreeing with the idea of correctness and truth being relative. That said - my exposure to History in higher education is that it's very "culturally pluralist", which is a liberal ideas
Avatar image for Meinhard_X
Meinhard_X

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Meinhard_X
Member since 2010 • 132 Posts

Kids don't need religious balance in schools.

They can get their fill of it at home, and then come to learn about real things at school.

fiscope
OK, so both me and my roommate are at least skeptical of religion, but since I had a religious background I understand a lot of religious (and some philosophical) ideas better than he does. My roommate on the other hand (with NO religious background) doesn't understand hardly anything pertaining to organized religion (while he does know more about the different kinds of atheism / agnosticism.) So while he has what could very well be a 'good, logical' world view, he comes across as very misunderstanding and overly cynical of religious ideas. My point being that not everyone will get exposed to religion outside of school, and while religious ideas may not be 'real', religious people represent a good portion of the global population and without a balanced education you may not be able to relate to these people very well.