Section 2 (1 Viewer)

[Cabrello]

Re: case study - wtf!?

the quote wasn't really regarding context was it, more the personal impositon on ones historical interpretation leading to discourse?

and clendinned made a big point about the rising popularity of public history, i think if any, this was the main point abuot contextual influence.

did any of you challenge trhe source directly, sure i highlighted differences and similarities with historians but also showed how Clendinned him/herself littered his perspective with the corruption of rhetoric (i didnt say corruption of rhetoric, something mroe suave)


Edit: E. H. Carr

so glad for the edit there, I was htinking...I must've really screwed this up, but more than that, Clendinnen was a guy? I hope they don't dock marks for being stupid enough to get genders wrong.

And to the guy who started the thread and complained about Tacitus, thecase study wants you to all but ignore Tacitus' writing and focus on the historical opinions of Tacitus' writing....that's very hard to get your head around, or at least I've had difficulty with it, and all you need to know aboutTacitus is the context.



I disputed the quote mostly because I hate my case study and researched hisotoriographers (as we shld call them in this forum at least) that agreed with eachother from different historical trainings and approached it differently...won't do well, but who cares

 

[Bobness]

Re: case study - wtf!?

no i think we'll have to agree to disagree

isn't historiography just another school of history and hence 'historiographers' are in essence historians?

otherwise tacitus i looked at him for section 1 but i think i'd go crazy doing him as a case study. i mean only windschuttle could be worse .. or maybe marx

 

[Jessica_00]

Fishes?

:rofl: Its so funny how people are bragging about how many fish analogies they mentioned. I'm first in my extention class and I can tell you now, fishes don't mean anything. You were suppose to take out the main issues of the source, not take it literally! Hahaha
What you were suppose to do was draw out the purpose of historians and the methods in histriography and explain that relating to the nature of your chosen debate. That historians have methods of choosing facts like catching fish in a vast inaccesible ocean or like a fish slab, thus they can never achieve objectivity or be apart from their context - even if they intentionally do so or not. Thats the crux of the source, not...fish....

 

[undotwa]

Re: Fishes?

I'm first in my class too! I think you're dead wrong! The whole source was meant to be taken literally! Gosh, if you didn't talk about the way in which fisherman catch fish, well, you're screwed!

 

[Bobness]

Re: Fishes?

Too much ego-inflation here. It means jack sh*t if you are top in your class, especially if you're in a 500+ ranked school. Look i don't mean to rain on your parade - and both of you are probably very smart - but don't use your rank to justify the fact that your interpretation is 'the best' or the only one that will score highly.

Like i posted in another thread if you wanted to score the top TOP mark, you would have had to understand EH Carr's What is History? and how its actually

"i.e. people say subjectivity (what the source refers to) when COME ON its more about how facts aren't "historical facts" until the historian uses them or that there is a "prcoess of attrition" before the past is recorded as facts - its in what is history? pg 12-13."

Trust me on this as markers love you to show you actually understand the background and context of the provided text. Those who understood carl becker and his identity, aims+purposes in the 04 hsc scored the highest; my ex-tutor studied pomo/relativism in historiography and applied that to becker very well to place 2nd in the state. THAT is a fact, and i'm not saying its the only way, just basing on history lolz

However, both of what you two have posted are fine. If you understood your case study well enough, the interpretation of the source needn't affect your marks drastically.

 

[billy_slater]

oh yeah well i came first in james ruse. so you can suck my cock