This week, ending in August 31 2017:
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.
A few days ago, /u/kurrkurr asked a follow up in this thread which I removed for being too off topic, but did promise it would have a home here! As such, posting it here so hopefully some people can weigh in on the nature of historical enquiry that this strikes at!
Why can you cite sources like "Bartlett, Robert. Trial by Fire and by Water" and rest your argument on it. Why does the voice of the comment author weigh so much less than the voice of Robert Bartlett?
And did Robert Bartlett rest his arguments on someone else's work? Where does it stop?
When is it sufficient to take someone's story for a fact?
How does writing history work?
What is the academic consensus on David Marr, who specializes in Vietnamese History? I ask this because my new professor wrote a lengthy review criticizing Marr's most recent book
My professor said he might assign us to read the review later in the semester. (hence why I haven't read it yet)