heritage and history

[Hugh Lawson]

History is different from heritage.

History is the scientific study of the past. Thus history reveals for
example that Julius Caesar may well have committed genocide against the
Gauls. The Romans from a historical standpoint were a brutal slaveowing
society, most of their slaves coming from conquered peoples, or from
infants abandoned by pitiful people who could not support them. The
Romans executed in a brutal manner Jesus of Nazareth--and many
others. And they practiced judicial torture.

But these characteristics are not what we value about the Romans. My
private study of Latin does not endorse Roman imperialism and Roman
enslavement.

Heritage is what we want to value about the past, what we select from it
that is meaningful to us. Thus we don't value the English brutality
toward the native Americans. We don't value American slavery, or the
American system of caste, as Frederick Douglas named it.

Hence it is up to *us* to decide what from the past we wish to
value. Only I have the power to decide what it is that I value from the
past.

[slotrot]

On Apr 21, 6:38 am, MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> FUCK YOU !

He sure has a way with words! LOLOLOLOL

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:38:48 -0700 (PDT), MITO MINISTER
<cigarm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 21, 8:51 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

>FUCK YOU !

Sometimes those words can be eloquent. Much, much more often,
however, and especially on the Internet, they're spoken for lack of a
better argument. This is not a case where I find them eloquent.

I can't believe you got out of jail so early, MM! Did you escape? If
so, it will only be worse on you once you're recaptured! They'll
throw you in the hole and put you on rice and water!!

[Hugh Lawson]

slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

[ snip ]

> He sure has a way with words! LOLOLOLOL

just think, MM is believed to be a teacher. No wonder he hides his true
name and identity.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

On Apr 21, 8:51 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not buy your argument for a second. It's too late to be feeling
sorry for what YOUR ancestors did to Indians and Africans. You're WAY
too late. Apologies NOT accepted. Why are you always trying to be a
civil rights kinda guy? Feelin' guilty?

African-Americans LIKEWISE have the right to dwell on their past and
on the horrors that YOUR ancestors perpetrated ON THEM, if they so
desire. That is their right. They also have the right to remind you
that your present condition in part derives from your past actions.

History is NOT science. It is all too often an arbitrary recollection
of the past that suits the present day. You are no historian. You are
trying to portray yourself as an enlightened White Southerner, but
frankly, that dog won't hunt. I resent your pretence and I see through
your fabrications.

[scott s.]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:877gxa2...@dell-desktop.xx.yy:

>
> History is different from heritage.
>
> History is the scientific study of the past.

I think you are mixing up history and anthropology.

scott s.
.

[Hugh Lawson]

Some objections I expected. So I'll give some authorities:

1. I was a history major in college (BA, 1960), before grade inflation
set in. ;-)

2. My use of scientific matches this definition:

"Broadly, having or appearing to have an exact, objective, factual,
systematic, or methodical basis." (s.v. "scientific" American Heritage
Dictionary, c. 1969.)

Historians usually claim something like this for their work, and there
is fair agreement that good history may be distinguished from worse
history by recognized standards.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Apr 24, 7:10 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "scott s." <75270_37...@csi.xcom> writes:
> > Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote in

Stating that you have a BA in history does NOT add veracity to any of
your arguments. That there is "good" and "bad" history does nothing
for your claim that history is scientific. Try again.

[Hugh Lawson]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:

[ snip ]

>
> Some objections I expected. So I'll give some authorities:
>
> 1. I was a history major in college (BA, 1960), before grade inflation
> set in. ;-)
>
> 2. My use of scientific matches this definition:
>
> "Broadly, having or appearing to have an exact, objective, factual,
> systematic, or methodical basis." (s.v. "scientific" American Heritage
> Dictionary, c. 1969.)
>
> Historians usually claim something like this for their work, and there
> is fair agreement that good history may be distinguished from worse
> history by recognized standards.
>

Let me add, that I won't argue about the *meaning* of the word
scientific. I will point to usage.

First, a dictionary definition, printed above, allows scientific to be
used wrt historical study, for it appears to have a "methodical basis".
It produces findings judged to to be satisfactory for including in the
curricula of schools and colleges. Thirdly, there exist political
science, the social sciences generally, naval science, military science,
administrative science, and many other subjects that bear the name of
science.

When errors, myths, etc., are found in history books, these errors are
usually revealed by later historical study. To point to those errors,
is to hold that history pursues knowledge by means of procedures for
improvement and self-correction.

Let me say something about my purposes in posting.

I post to tell what I think, and to see whether there are meritorious
replies. I don't ask for agreement. The reader's agreement is entirely
her own affair.


HL

[scott s.]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:87aa21i...@gmail.com:

As a science major, I took History of Science (2 courses) and
Military History of the US to meet my humanities requirement.
I do agree that the philosophy of science is an interesting study,
and too many "scientists" fail to consider the basis of their
understanding of what science is (or is not).

Do you see deconstructing texts using the methodology of
post-modernism and post-colonialism as a scientific effort?

scott s.
.

[Hugh Lawson]

"scott s." <75270...@csi.xcom> writes:

[ snip ]

> As a science major, I took History of Science (2 courses) and
> Military History of the US to meet my humanities requirement.
> I do agree that the philosophy of science is an interesting study,
> and too many "scientists" fail to consider the basis of their
> understanding of what science is (or is not).
>
> Do you see deconstructing texts using the methodology of
> post-modernism and post-colonialism as a scientific effort?

Let's fall back and regroup.

I used the term scientific for a purpose: to distinguish history as a
field of inquiry from heritage. History I said is the scientific study
of the past, but heritage is what a community selects from its own
understanding of the past as something to be valued.

Hence, in the context in which I was speaking, I wanted to distinguish a
disciplined field of knowledge, capable of correction, and so on, from
somethng else. Scientific seemed like a good word for this purpose.

An example of this is provided by Gaines Foster in his book Ghosts
of the Confederacy. As he tells it the Sons of Confederate Veterans
decided to make the focal point of their heritage the hardiness and
valor of the confederate soldier, and to give up devotion to the
political goal of independence.

Upon being challenged, I tried to show what I meant by scientific, in
relation to history. But there are other contexts.

Now I know how to discuss history as a field of knowledge. But I don't
have a perspicacious definition of "scientific" that lets me classify on
demand any given topic as scientific or not.

I'm trying to avoid "saying more than I know." LOL


HL

[scott s.]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:874ns8r...@gmail.com:

>
> Let's fall back and regroup.
>
> I used the term scientific for a purpose: to distinguish history as
> a field of inquiry from heritage. History I said is the scientific
> study of the past, but heritage is what a community selects from its
> own understanding of the past as something to be valued.
>
> Hence, in the context in which I was speaking, I wanted to
> distinguish a disciplined field of knowledge, capable of correction,
> and so on, from somethng else. Scientific seemed like a good word
> for this purpose.
>
> An example of this is provided by Gaines Foster in his book Ghosts
> of the Confederacy. As he tells it the Sons of Confederate Veterans
> decided to make the focal point of their heritage the hardiness and
> valor of the confederate soldier, and to give up devotion to the
> political goal of independence.
>
> Upon being challenged, I tried to show what I meant by scientific,
> in relation to history. But there are other contexts.
>
> Now I know how to discuss history as a field of knowledge. But I
> don't have a perspicacious definition of "scientific" that lets me
> classify on demand any given topic as scientific or not.
>
> I'm trying to avoid "saying more than I know." LOL
>

Well I think there certainly are methodological considerations
which in some sense can be considered "scientific" but I think you
have a problem in that evidence is evidence, and it is difficult to
create evidence where none exists, unlike in traditonal sciences.
Too I think in interpretation history tends to rely on literary
devices such as narrative whereas science has tended towards
mathematical formalism.

Heritage to me sounds more like a synonym for culture in the
anthropolgical sense.

scott s.
.

[Hugh Lawson]

"scott s." <75270...@csi.xcom> writes:


> Well I think there certainly are methodological considerations
> which in some sense can be considered "scientific" but I think you
> have a problem in that evidence is evidence, and it is difficult to
> create evidence where none exists, unlike in traditonal sciences.

This subject is much more important to you than it is to me.

When I said scientific I meant:

deliberately seeking knowledge
with methods that can be taught and learned
subject to revision
the work conducted in the open, with criticism accepted as normal
etc.

And that was in the context of trying to distinguish history from
heritage.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:06:09 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

To me, that sounds more like being objective. It's certainly not the
scientific method which is ultimately grounded in reproducible
experimental or observational results. A good historian will try to
be as objective and factual as possible but the study of history will
always have a subjective component.

[Hugh Lawson]

What I mean by "scientific" is something like what in German is called
"wissenschaftlich". I'm sure you can understand what I mean.



HL

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:55:17 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>

Jawohl, mein Herrl!!!