This week, ending in February 26 2015:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Hmm. In the course of making this post last week, I got IP-blocked from an essential online database and my library got threatened with having access cut off to the entire university. I've now had access restored following the explanation that I sent them.
But folks, be careful out there before using databases intensively... After all, it's not as though any normal researcher would want to do make heavy use of them! /s
Hope this question fits for today and not tomorrow.
I've been thinking about the terms from the War of American Independence such as: Loyalist/Tories, Patriots/Whigs. A lot of books have them interchangeable but I'm not sure if that's quite accurate. In the British sense Tory and Whig are different than what these authors describe, save for the fact that Tories are pro-king and Whigs want more of a democracy. It gets really frustrating to pick and stick with.
What does the historiography of the idea of convivencia look like in the past 5-10 years or so?