For those who are into history...

I've always thought history was fascinating but never liked History classes until I met the professor at the college I attend.

Nothing makes history come alive more in a classroom setting than someone who knows how to tell a story. This guy has all the facts and tells History like it just happened to him on his way to work that day...he is popular for good reason and those of us that took him for two semesters in a row are making sure he stays that way. He acts like he does not enjoy the notoriety but I know he enjoys his paychecks LOL!
He teased the hell outta me between semesters for being the first person to sign into his second class...it was worth every second of his tormenting me.

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll look into it and if I don't find it interesting eniugh to read, I know a professor who would appreciate having a (or another lol) copy as he is an avid collector of published historical works when they are done right.
That reminds me...he has a copy of a History Major's thesis on loan that I need to get back one of these days. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Aelia Jusa]

I agree Moni! I think with anything you learn the person teaching makes all the difference, but history especially. And reading primary texts! This is so crucial, especially in ancient history. History at school was awful, textbooks are terrible! At uni we have to read the primary sources, Plutarch, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, makes it so much more interesting to know you're reading something written at the time or shortly after, that for centuries has been read and interpreted and translated. After all, textbooks are based on primary sources, may as well go directly there and form your own opinions rather than read the opinions of someone else [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gregory Longshanks]

Originally posted by khazadman: longshanks,i couldn't disagree more.what's the point in reading a book on history if it's not true?that's not history,it's fiction.

Khazadman - I in no way mean to imply that "dry" history is necessarily dull or that biased history is superior...rather, that bearing in mind that biased accounts are suspect in terms of their absolute factual value, they still are history (all history is biased regardless of the author or source)- and much can be gleaned from reading ANY book. Personally I enjoy accounts written with some bias - but I keep in mind the source. That's all.

I spent years reading traditional scholarly histories on a variety of subjects - it is my profession and I am very proud of it. And I appreciate the traditional books very much. But over the years I've come to appreciate different views. You are correct in your implied assertion that much of what passes for "history" is patently garbage. But aside from dates and names, history is open to interpretion (NOT revision in the modern sense - that is disgrace to history). Events can be seen in differing lights, and by analysis, one can reach their own judgement.

[Thoran]

That's where schoolbook history is missing the mark IMO. History as a subject of study is a vibrant and diverse area... full of debate. By masticating a severely biased view of history down to a one dimensional entity where the good guys were all good, the bad guys were all bad, and nothing is open for debate... History texts bore students out of even a slight interest in the subject.

I understand the need to limit the complexity of subject matter so kids will learn something, but I would imagine that if a subject captures their interest they're more likely to learn than just from wrote memororization of dull material.

[DraconisRex]

Ah, history. It's so much different than what we're taught in elementry/secondary school.

George Washington - Grew Hemp on his plantation. But also grew hemp to smoke. (Marijuana). How do we know he wanted to smoke it? Because in his diaries he was upset one year that he didn't pinch the flowers off soon enough to make buds. You don't do that unless you want to increase the THC content. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Native Americans - That's a funny old one. The "current" native americans are the second wave. In South America, the natives were descended from the same population as the aboriginals in Australia. In North America, the natives were descended from the same population as most of your western europeans

BOth sets were absorbed (completely in South America, mostly in North America) by the current emigrees who are descended of mongols, that arose 7,000 BC in central asia. Also note, the mongols did it in for the caucasians in that region, too. There are a few scattered tribes, mostly in remote areas of Japan, of the original caucasoids, but they were basicaly killed off and/or absorbed.

The Rosenbergs - Put to death as the masterminds of a giant commie spy ring. Only the FBI withheld evidence that indicated they were nobodies, especially Ethyl Rosenberg. The FBI arrested Ethyl Rosenberg to put pressure on Julian Rosenberg. Also, the FBI knew who the real spies were (Jerry Hall, and another guy, forgot his name) but wouldn't arrest them for some rather stupid reasons that would take about 100 column inches of space. [img]smile.gif[/img] Even Hoover tried to get the judge to show lienency, but the judge would have none of it during the hysteria of McCarthy era.

The Halls of Montezuma - Big marine corps victory? Sorry, it was a boy's military academy. Bunch of big, bad mofo marines taking on 12-year old boys drilling with muskets. Oh yeah. Be proud!