Rabid Bee Stings Himself
D. Spencer Hines
determine what is and what is not a historical fact.
"_Whatever is commonly accepted information among historians is
"factual."_ [N.B. Emphasis in the original] While there is a hard
substratum of basic data that is accepted as inevitably true, there is
also a "gray area" of historical facts ---- statements that are accepted
as true by many or even by most historians but regarded as vulnerable or
only partly true by others."
Dr. Norman F. Cantor, Professor of History, New York University and Dr.
Richard I. Schneider, Professor of History, York University, _How To
Study History_, Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1967, ISBN 0-88295-709-0, p. 24.
Here's another indisputable historical fact involving causes, from a
different Civil War. It is not in the "gray area" noted supra by Cantor
and Schneider:
"One of the underlying and precipitating causes of the American Civil
War [1861-1865] was the institution of slavery, perceived as an integral
and requisite part of the economy and culture of the South and not of
the North."
It's a historical fact.
So is this:
"One of the underlying and precipitating causes of the English Civil
War was the widespread hatred for George Villiers [1592-1628], Duke of
Buckingham, and the failure of his foreign and military policies. He
was also perceived by many in England as supremely arrogant and
incompetent to hold so high a position in the realm and in the favour of
both James I/VI and his son, Charles I."
And this:
Edward II often demonstrated his very strong feelings towards his good
friend, Piers Gaveston.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
William Black
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
> "One of the underlying and precipitating causes of the English Civil
> War was the widespread hatred for George Villiers [1592-1628], Duke of
> Buckingham, and the failure of his foreign and military policies. He
> was also perceived by many in England as supremely arrogant and
> incompetent to hold so high a position in the realm and in the favour of
> both James I/VI and his son, Charles I."
But the civil war didn't start until 1642, so explain how a man dead for 14
years caused the war. Incluse the vision of Pym, the aquital of Lilbourne
and the compounding of Cromwell in your answer.
It's not that simple. The English Revolution had many causes. Buckingham
was a symptom of a deeper mailise within English society at that time. If
it wasn't him it would have been some other shit like Lunsford making
trouble.
---------------------------------------------------------
William Black | And dar'st thou Warrior seek to see
| What heaven and hell alike would hide
| Lay of the last minstrel, Sir Walter
Scott
Paul J. Gans
> D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
>> "One of the underlying and precipitating causes of the English Civil
>> War was the widespread hatred for George Villiers [1592-1628], Duke of
>> Buckingham, and the failure of his foreign and military policies. He
>> was also perceived by many in England as supremely arrogant and
>> incompetent to hold so high a position in the realm and in the favour of
>> both James I/VI and his son, Charles I."
> But the civil war didn't start until 1642, so explain how a man dead for 14
> years caused the war. Incluse the vision of Pym, the aquital of Lilbourne
> and the compounding of Cromwell in your answer.
> It's not that simple. The English Revolution had many causes. Buckingham
> was a symptom of a deeper mailise within English society at that time. If
> it wasn't him it would have been some other shit like Lunsford making
> trouble.
You don't understand. D. has proclaimed this to be a FACT!
How dare you argue with FACTS!
Further he's quoted it from somewhere, so he has an out. It
wasn't he who said anything, it was that damned Anonymous
who did it.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
not understand?
Now, don't go stupid on me.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8q2tft$kj1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
|
| D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
|
| > "One of the underlying and precipitating causes of the English Civil
| > War was the widespread hatred for George Villiers [1592-1628], Duke
of
| > Buckingham, and the failure of his foreign and military policies.
He
| > was also perceived by many in England as supremely arrogant and
| > incompetent to hold so high a position in the realm and in the
favour of
| > both James I/VI and his son, Charles I."
|
| But the civil war didn't start until 1642, so explain how a man dead
for 14
| years caused the war. Incluse [sic] the vision of Pym, the aquital of
Lilbourne
| and the compounding of Cromwell in your answer.
|
| It's not that simple. The English Revolution had many causes.
Buckingham
| was a symptom of a deeper mailise [sic] within English society at that
time. If
| it wasn't him [sic] it would have been some other shit like Lunsford
making
| trouble.
|
d wilcox
>
> "Rabid Bee" continues to fail to understand that it is Historians who
> determine what is and what is not a historical fact.
>
I really think you mean 'determine what facts are of value'
derek
D. Spencer Hines
No, actually I don't.
Historians, in the final analysis, determine what is and what is not
historical fact ---- it comes with the territory.
Like watching pigs make love, manufacturing sausage, or writing
legislation ---- the process is not always pretty to watch.
But that's how historical facts get decided on. Some historical
factoids [wannabe historical facts], of course, never escape from the
gray area and remain in perennial dispute among historians. These often
make for some of the best conversations, discussions, arguments and
creative repartee. These _historical factoids_ do not achieve
_historical facthood_.
Norman Cantor and Richard Schneider have stated all this quite well:
"_Whatever is commonly accepted information among historians is
"factual."_ [N.B. Emphasis in the original] While there is a hard
substratum of basic data that is accepted as inevitably true, there is
also a "gray area" of historical facts ---- statements that are accepted
as true by many or even by most historians but regarded as vulnerable or
only partly true by others."
Dr. Norman F. Cantor, Professor of History, New York University and Dr.
Richard I. Schneider, Professor of History, York University, _How To
Study History_, Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1967, ISBN 0-88295-709-0, p. 24.
Cheers,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"d wilcox" <dwi...@lightage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39C7AD01...@lightage.demon.co.uk...
Paul J. Gans
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>
>> "Rabid Bee" continues to fail to understand that it is Historians who
>> determine what is and what is not a historical fact.
>>
> I really think you mean 'determine what facts are of value'
I suspect that he means what he says. For him, facts
are decided by consensus among historians -- historians
whose opinions happen to agree with his.
This is decidedly convenient.
----- Paul J. Gans
d wilcox
>
> Vide infra.
>
> No, actually I don't.
>
>
what isn't. A fact has to have a relation to reality and of
course it must be true. The Battle of Hastings took place in
1066 whether you or anyone else believes it or not.
Ice cream tastes nice is not a fact but a matter of opinion.
derek
Søren Larsen
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:eJNkAlmIAHA.64@cpmsnbbsa07...
snip
> Norman Cantor and Richard Schneider have stated all this quite well:
>
> "_Whatever is commonly accepted information among historians is
> "factual."_ [N.B. Emphasis in the original] While there is a hard
> substratum of basic data that is accepted as inevitably true, there is
> also a "gray area" of historical facts ---- statements that are accepted
> as true by many or even by most historians but regarded as vulnerable or
> only partly true by others."
>
> Dr. Norman F. Cantor, Professor of History, New York University and Dr.
> Richard I. Schneider, Professor of History, York University, _How To
> Study History_, Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1967, ISBN 0-88295-709-0, p. 24.
>
I have just started reading "Harald Blåtands død/The death of Harald
Bluetooth"
by Niels Lund.Here is part of the preface in my tranlation:
The past is given by nature, and it is like the the universe neverending and
incomprehensible in time and space. History, on the contrary, is human
work. It is our attempt to orientate ourselves and understand , how and why
our world and time has become the way they are.History is the historians
answers to the questions, we ask about the past.
If we think that it is possible to gather more knowledge, history, because
of that, can never be seen as unchangeable.
Niels Lund is professor dr.phil of History at Copenhagen University
where he specialises in the vikingage and the early medieval period.
cheers
Søren Larsen
D. Spencer Hines
Horsefeathers.
Gans proves, once again, that he has no education in History and is
incompetent as a Historian.
| I suspect that he means what he says. For him, facts
| are decided by consensus among historians -- historians
| whose opinions happen to agree with his. pjg ---- 9/19/00
Misrepresentation, Disingenuous Statement, Lie.
_Hines_ is not a professional historian, just an amateur, and doesn't
really have a say in determining what is or is not a historical
fact ---- but he can read and ponder and listen to what the professional
historians have to say in these matters.
It is what Historians ***themselves*** understand to be true. Vide
Cantor and Schneider, infra. They are quite correct.
I say again:
Historians, in the final analysis, determine what is and what is not
historical fact ---- it comes with the territory. It's one of the most
important things they do for a living.
Like watching pigs make love, manufacturing sausage, or writing
legislation ---- the process is not always pretty to watch.
But that's how historical facts get decided on. Some historical
factoids [wannabe historical facts], of course, never escape from the
gray area and remain in perennial dispute among historians.
These often make for some of the best conversations, discussions,
arguments and creative repartee. These _historical factoids_ or
"wannabe historical facts" have not achieved _historical facthood_ and
may **never**do so ---- because of insufficient evidence.
"Richard III conspired in the wrongful death of his two young nephews,
Edward and Richard" is one of those "gray area" historical factoids.
Norman Cantor and Richard Schneider have stated all this quite well:
"_Whatever is commonly accepted information among historians is
"factual."_ [N.B. Emphasis in the original] While there is a hard
substratum of basic data that is accepted as inevitably true, there is
also a "gray area" of historical facts ---- statements that are accepted
as true by many or even by most historians but regarded as vulnerable or
only partly true by others."
Dr. Norman F. Cantor, Professor of History, New York University and Dr.
Richard I. Schneider, Professor of History, York University, _How To
Study History_, Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1967, ISBN 0-88295-709-0, p. 24.
--------------------------------------------------------------
What part of the Cantor/Schneider quotation, supra, don't you
understand, Mr. Wilcox?
Yes:
"The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066 and William the Conqueror
won."
Those are historical facts.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:TMPx5.2$X5....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Paul J Gans
>D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> skrev i en
>nyhedsmeddelelse:eJNkAlmIAHA.64@cpmsnbbsa07...
>snip
>> Norman Cantor and Richard Schneider have stated all this quite well:
>>
>> "_Whatever is commonly accepted information among historians is
>> "factual."_ [N.B. Emphasis in the original] While there is a hard
>> substratum of basic data that is accepted as inevitably true, there is
>> also a "gray area" of historical facts ---- statements that are accepted
>> as true by many or even by most historians but regarded as vulnerable or
>> only partly true by others."
>>
>> Dr. Norman F. Cantor, Professor of History, New York University and Dr.
>> Richard I. Schneider, Professor of History, York University, _How To
>> Study History_, Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1967, ISBN 0-88295-709-0, p. 24.
>>
>I have just started reading "Harald Blåtands død/The death of Harald
>Bluetooth"
>by Niels Lund.Here is part of the preface in my tranlation:
>The past is given by nature, and it is like the the universe neverending and
>incomprehensible in time and space. History, on the contrary, is human
>work. It is our attempt to orientate ourselves and understand , how and why
>our world and time has become the way they are.History is the historians
>answers to the questions, we ask about the past.
>If we think that it is possible to gather more knowledge, history, because
>of that, can never be seen as unchangeable.
>Niels Lund is professor dr.phil of History at Copenhagen University
>where he specialises in the vikingage and the early medieval period.
>cheers
>Søren Larsen
Of course. Historians know this. They know about
historical "facts". D. does not like this. That
is too bad. History changes and will continue to
change. Some folks can accept this, some cannot.
People sometimes want definitive answers to questions
that do not have definitive answers. The silly business
over the time of sunset at Hastings is an example. We
only know what is in the sources and we do not know how
much of that to believe.
Prof. Lund put it very well. History *is* a human construct.
It was once the story of battles and kings. Today it is
a different story. Tomorrow it might yet again be different.
D. seems to like to authority, *his* authorities, decide
issues. This is very sad.
---- Paul J. Gans
Rabid Bee
home. If this representation is considered too small, I will happy go
through other works at the library, in a few weeks after I have finished
my dissertation.
"Historians of a later generation [than the nineteenth century]...
consider that knowledge of the past has come down through one or more
human minds, has been 'processed' by them, and therefore cannot consist
of elemental and impersonal atoms which nothing can alter... since all
historical judgements involve persons and points of view, one is as good
as another and there is no 'objective' historical truth." (Sir George
Clark, "The New Cambridge Modern History", I, 1957, pp xxiv-xxv, quoted
in E H Carr, "What is History?", Penguin, 1964 (1st 1961), pp 7-8)
"What is a historical fact?... According to the commonsense view, there
are certain basic facts which are the same for all historians and which
form, so to speak, the backbone of history - the fact, for example, that
the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. But this view calls for two
observations. In the first place, it is not with facts like these that
the historian is primarily concerned. It is no doubt important to know
that the great battle was fought in 1066 and not in 1065 or 1067, and
that it was fought at Hastings and not at Eastbourne or Brighton. The
historian must not get these things wrong. But when points of this kind
are raised, I am reminded of Housman's remark that 'accuract is a duty,
not a virtue'. To praise a historian for his accuracy is like praising
an architect for using well-seasoned timber... It is a necessary
condition of his work, but not his essential function... The second
observation is that the necessity to establish these basic facts rests
not on any quality in the facts themselves, but on an a priori decision
of the historian... It used to be said that facts speak for
themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the
historian calls on them... It is the historian who has decided for his
own reasons that Caesar's crossing of that petty stream is a fact of
history, whereas the crossing of the Rubicon by millions of other people
before or since interests nobody at all." (ibid, pp 10-11)
"This element of interpretation enters into every fact of history."
"The historian is necessarily selective. The belief in a hard core of
historical facts existing objectively and independantly of the
interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which
it is very hard to eradicate." (ibid, p 12)
"The history we read is, strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a
series of acepted judgements." (G Barraclough, "History in a Changing
World" (1955), p 14, quoted in ibid, p 14)
"Of course facts and documents are essential to the historian. But do
not make a fetish of them. They do not by themselves constitute
history; they provide in themselves no ready-made answer..." (ibid, p
19)
"The facts never come to us 'pure', since they do not and cannot exist
in a pure form: they are always refracted through the mind of the
recorder. It follows that when we take up a work of history, our first
concern should be not with the facts which it contanis, but with the
historian who wrote it." (ibid., p 22)
DSH repeatedly argue that historians decide what the facts are.
However, if they can't even agree what the characteristics of a fact
are, how can they then pick the facts? As Carr makes clear time and
again, interpretation is the important thing. Different historians can
take the same infomation and reach opposite conclussions.
Cheers, alex
Rabid Bee
>
> "_Whatever is commonly accepted information among historians is
> "factual."_ [N.B. Emphasis in the original] While there is a hard
> substratum of basic data that is accepted as inevitably true, there is
> also a "gray area" of historical facts ---- statements that are accepted
> as true by many or even by most historians but regarded as vulnerable or
> only partly true by others."
Have you read the rest of the book, or just this one paragraph... over
and over again? :-)
cheers, alex
D. Spencer Hines
and doing nothing more than cut and paste.
Booorring!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@mcmail.com> wrote in message
news:39C92D...@mcmail.com...
<kilosnip>
Rabid Bee
> and doing nothing more than cut and paste.
>
> Booorring!
Then you clearly didn't read what I wrote. Historians don't decide
facts - as Carr says, everyone knows what happened in 1066. That's just
accuracy. Historians *interpret* facts. They take the raw info and
mould it through their interpretations.
They are also much less inclined than yesteryear to simply trust
infomation that has come down to us from the past. We now recognise
that the data has already been filtered by the recorder's
interpretation.
It is because of this that historians disagree. This is not the matter
of a "grey area" - Mark Kishlansky and Ian Gentles can study the
creation of the New Model army, for instance, using the same sources,
and come to the exact opposite conclusions. Some "grey area"!
You have also argued that if an interpretation is held by enough
historians, then it too becomes fact. Carr's word clearly refute this
idea. Many previously held dogmas have been rejected as time went by;
some have since been adopted once more.
Everyone knows the facts, or can find them out; it is the assessment of
the facts that are a historian's job.
Cheers, Alex
Paul J. Gans
> cheers, alex
As you may see in my detailed criticism of his quoting from
Bradbury's _The Battle of Hastings_, he's not at all above
quote mining for out-of-context sentences and the omission
of anything to the contrary of his opinion.
The notion of the constructed nature of "factuality" in
history is well-known by historians. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with post-modernism or anything of the
sort.
Some events are so likely to have happened that they are
virtual certainties. Hastings in 1066 is one of those.
Most others, as you've noted, are not so certain. Some
others are very uncertain.
Historians know this. Sensible folks know this. Draw
your own conclusions about those who not only object but
who present opinion as facts.
---- Paul J. Gans
d wilcox
Historians who
determine what is and what is not a historical fact.
The above is the opening paragraph of your first post on
this thread.
Seems clear to me
derek