Human nature vs Historiography

Sep 2015
1,650
England
#1
Gibson states in her 2014 book as follows: 'The indigenous people of the Americas were either gentle or fierce, civilised or cannibalistic, depending on who was writing about them.'

it's with ref to 1650-1750; (is also the case in the previous period 1500-1650, roughly, as far as i can work). But did they really think it was the case in each instance, and if so how???!!!!!

These people would have been high-up-ish in society. Are they playing up to prejudices, having a whirl at early social engineering pre-TV (non-investigatory) journalism. Too tempted towards the sensational, in order to shift more of their books and for potential fame. Or are they just plain ignorant ?? (and evidently unenlightened)???

We all know prejudice is ignorance. It's sort of obvious: if you've met two people that fall into (some) category, who are different, what do you make of it.

It is evidently a problem in human nature (sooner or later), simplifying/categorising etc. Are we not getting the better of this, or are we failing ??
 
Sep 2015
1,650
England
#2
Casteel writes about, 'contradictions and ambivalences' in West Indian history, that provides an 'alternative to U.S.-based critical narratives...'

what are we like ??!!!
 
Sep 2015
1,650
England
#4
Great Man theory has a contender as indeed does the longue duree: rupturist!

History is in fact (under theoretical description for any post-modernist still dieing hard (6.0)), 'a patternless pile of contingencies, and that causes...are untraceable beyond the short term'. Literally it may be events dear boy events, but it is surely events, after unrelated events, leading to existing and subsequent influences, making history.

There is indeed human interest amidst the din of battle; individuals, caught up 'inside the impersonal forces of conflict', and subsequent moral dilemmas extant between lines of 'ideologically inflated rhetoric'.

What use will a fine and nice theory ever be?
 
Sep 2015
1,650
England
#6
Who is this Gibson woman that published a book in 2014, and what is the book title?
you say 'who is this Gibson woman...'

Is there an attitude that lurks behind your use of language? i suspect as much, and so would any right thinking person

You might say: Who is this Gibson man that published a book in 2014 ...

Or perhaps you wouldn't.

Otherwise, your lack of faith in a regular historum poster to quote and refer to an authentic, credible text is not surprising in any way, in fact it is somewhat true to form. So in short, benefit of the doubt old partner is what i ask of you before anything else. Thanks in advance.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,876
Portugal
#7
you say 'who is this Gibson woman...'

Is there an attitude that lurks behind your use of language? i suspect as much, and so would any right thinking person

You might say: Who is this Gibson man that published a book in 2014 ...

Or perhaps you wouldn't.

Otherwise, your lack of faith in a regular historum poster to quote and refer to an authentic, credible text is not surprising in any way, in fact it is somewhat true to form. So in short, benefit of the doubt old partner is what i ask of you before anything else. Thanks in advance.
You quoted a woman named Gibson, without pointing her first name, or the name of the book. That raised my curiosity to know more about it. I made a strait question and didn’t had a strait answer. If my English grammar was incorrect feel free to correct it.

As for your post quoted above my English isn’t good enough to understand your point.
 
Sep 2015
1,650
England
#8
You quoted a woman named Gibson, without pointing her first name, or the name of the book. That raised my curiosity to know more about it. I made a strait question and didn’t had a strait answer. If my English grammar was incorrect feel free to correct it.

As for your post quoted above my English isn’t good enough to understand your point.
You post on Historum all the time, in English (4201 posts in fact perhaps all in English).
Your tweet sounded patently chauvinist. Not untypically your excuse is childish. End of.
Hope you have the humbleness to reckon with your issues one day.

The key to this discussion might have been or might actually be the content that i have referred to...

____________________________

You have form again not untypically: From
The Anglo Saxons were worse than the vikings.

sherdogger said:


Yes. The British culture is partly Viking (Scandinavian). I dont need to post sources about this. I think it must be a wide-spread truth to everybody who understand history.

The Danelaw was established before the Norman invasion, which also had a Scandinavian character.

If you have to say, or disagree with something, you can write your own view point. Don't insist from other posters to give you "sources". Nobody owes you anything, if you are being ignorant about something.


Tulius replies : 'Sorry, for being ignorant about the “The British are Vikings”, I am in this forum to learn.

But, as you well know, history is a discipline based on sources, so it you have a claim, you must source it. In this line of thinking I requested you the source for your claim.

So, yes, we need sources.

If you don’t present one, that is not an information, it is just your personal perspective. The personal perspective of sherdogger, self entitled “a south Slavic guy”.

Sorry, but I wouldn’t dare to quote you in any serious historical discussion.'
You didn't listen to a word the guy said in his post.

He gave an example why demanding a source in this instance was inappropriate, inapposite, facetious.
Your reply did not include any sense of comprehension about what he said.

And it all started in an earlier post No.17 in fact when you replied: '

I would like to see the source that “The British are Vikings”.

If you don’t source this, your post is as worthy as your personal opinion.'
In other words: Do what i tell you or you are discredited and marginalised.
How arrogant is that??!!!

Which begs the question, just who the hell do you think you are? talking to people like that.

I don't happen to agree with what he said about the extent of Viking in English dna. I think they are very present on the east coast but rapidly thins out. But insulting people like that is naff, yobish and not welcome in civilised society. You should apologise.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,876
Portugal
#9
You post on Historum all the time, in English (4201 posts in fact perhaps all in English).

Your tweet sounded patently chauvinist. Not untypically your excuse is childish. End of.

Hope you have the humbleness to reckon with your issues one day.

The key to this discussion might have been or might actually be the content that i have referred to...
If my post (I don’t tweet) sounded patently chauvinist to you, that is your sole interpretation, if you think that my excuse was childish, so be it, I don’t even gave an excuse, but I am also beginning to form my opinion about you.

Anyway, I made you a question that was intended to be strait and without second issues. Naturally you are not obliged to answer, even if that would be the most polite attitude in this open forum. If you will have the courtesy to answer it is up to you…

If you have something to say to me in any other thread, please say in that specific thread and not here, where is out of context and out of the blue.
 
Sep 2015
1,650
England
#10
If my post (I don’t tweet) sounded patently chauvinist to you, that is your sole interpretation, if you think that my excuse was childish, so be it, I don’t even gave an excuse, but I am also beginning to form my opinion about you.

Anyway, I made you a question that was intended to be strait and without second issues. Naturally you are not obliged to answer, even if that would be the most polite attitude in this open forum. If you will have the courtesy to answer it is up to you…

If you have something to say to me in any other thread, please say in that specific thread and not here, where is out of context and out of the blue.
Exactly, just nonsense. You never have given any indication of understanding or comprehending what i said in my post. Its significance! What did i say in reply to your earlier post. What was it?

I am more than happy to provide a source, its just that you never give sources for your own posts/claims, and never ask for sources from anyone, at all, except from those people whose opinion you don't seem to like. Obviously