Human nature vs Historiography

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,328
Portugal
#11
I am more than happy to provide a source,,,
Thank you, I will be waiting. After all this small drama wasn’t needed.

its just that you never give sources for your own posts/claims
That is incorrect. But feel free to question my sources in any post, whenever you desire.

and never ask for sources from anyone, at all, except from those people whose opinion you don't seem to like. Obviously
I ask for sources when I doubt the claim or when I have curiosity to know more about the theme.
 
Sep 2015
1,521
England
#12
Thank you, I will be waiting. After all this small drama wasn’t needed.

That is incorrect. But feel free to question my sources in any post, whenever you desire.

I ask for sources when I doubt the claim or when I have curiosity to know more about the theme.
It may be a drama to you.

If anyone has bothered or ended up reading through this thread, I'm sure they will draw their own bemused conclusions.
 
Sep 2017
109
Pennsylvania
#16
So, again: the key to this discussion might have been or might actually be the content that i have referred to...
Unrelated to the above, @dreuxeng, I would also be interested to know which particular Gibson and what particular book you are referencing in the OP. Having said that, your response to @Tulius puts me in a pretty skeptical frame of mind regarding not only the intentions behind this thread but also the validity of the source in question. This is merely my opinion, but there's been a lot more about @Tulius' personal character than there has about the content of your post.

So, I ask again. Author's name and title of the book in question?

As far as your central question, without examining specific historical authors it's difficult to say whether they were more ignorant than biased or vice versa. The same question, asked of contemporary authors in any field would face the same difficulty. Some authors are biased. Some authors are ignorant. Some racism and some stereotypes are positive, others are negative. Both sorts are equally detrimental.
 
Sep 2015
1,521
England
#17
Unrelated to the above, @dreuxeng, I would also be interested to know which particular Gibson and what particular book you are referencing in the OP. Having said that, your response to @Tulius puts me in a pretty skeptical frame of mind regarding not only the intentions behind this thread but also the validity of the source in question. This is merely my opinion, but there's been a lot more about @Tulius' personal character than there has about the content of your post.

So, I ask again. Author's name and title of the book in question?

As far as your central question, The same question, asked of contemporary authors in any field would face the same difficulty. Some authors are biased. Some authors are ignorant. Some racism and some stereotypes are positive, others are negative. Both sorts are equally detrimental.
I think you (and Tulius & chums) have been inexplicably suspicious, and consistently jumping to conclusions!

The funny thing is, the author and her work, is not necessarily relevant...it was an (very good) example. It was in my opinion just an interesting thing to say. And you have also missed the point. Yes, it is patently obvious as you say 'without examining specific historical authors it's difficult to say whether they were more ignorant than biased or vice versa'. But your lack of faith in a regular historum poster (me) to quote and refer to an authentic, credible text is what it is...

In short, benefit of the doubt is what i have asked for, in this thread, (and what benefit have I received?!). You also have not been able to do so. Unless you examine at least a few of my other posts, you will also have difficulty arriving at an understanding. But nonetheless it is an interesting book and i can recommend it: About