The Course of Empire

[Emperor Palpatine]

Well, the point of history as a social science is that one is supposed to go where the factual evidence takes one.

Not something Ferguson does anymore.

Best,

He's doing a book on Kissinger atm. He's been given access to Kissinger's personal papers. It that factual enough for you?

 

[TFSmith121]

Have to wait and see when it comes out...

He's doing a book on Kissinger atm. He's been given access to Kissinger's personal papers. It that factual enough for you?

Have to wait and see when it comes out...

Not to be cynical, but biographers who are given access to their subject and their subject's papers are - generally - not exactly disinterested scholars.

Best,

 

[Tonifranz]

Have to wait and see when it comes out...

Not to be cynical, but biographers who are given access to their subject and their subject's papers are - generally - not exactly disinterested scholars.

Best,

Biographers generally are more sympathetic to their subjects. Are they more reliable than critics who have no access to those papers at all?

As for Ferguson.

Just because you disagreed with views of a historian doesn't make him one less of a historian at all. After all, do you consider Tacitus, Gibbon, Herodotus, Xenophon, Suetonius, Livy, Polybis historians? If you consider them historians, then Ferguson is too. They all are polemicists too, since Tacitus smears all Roman Emperors, Xenophon favored Sparta too much, Suetonius writes too much gossip, and Gibbon, they say, blames Christianity for everything, Livy allows his patriotism to color is views, Polybius admired the Scipios too much, yet all the above are considered historians.

Just because someone has an agenda, favor one over the other, doesn't make one less of a historian. I don't think there can be a historian who is truly neutral and disinterested. All views and biases all permeat their writings, no matter how hard they try to hide that fact.

 

[TFSmith121]

There is a slight difference in professional standards

Biographers generally are more sympathetic to their subjects. Are they more reliable than critics who have no access to those papers at all? As for Ferguson.
Just because you disagreed with views of a historian doesn't make him one less of a historian at all. After all, do you consider Tacitus, Gibbon, Herodotus, Xenophon, Suetonius, Livy, Polybis historians? If you consider them historians, then Ferguson is too. They all are polemicists too, since Tacitus smears all Roman Emperors, Xenophon favored Sparta too much, Suetonius writes too much gossip, and Gibbon, they say, blames Christianity for everything, Livy allows his patriotism to color is views, Polybius admired the Scipios too much, yet all the above are considered historians.
Just because someone has an agenda, favor one over the other, doesn't make one less of a historian. I don't think there can be a historian who is truly neutral and disinterested. All views and biases all permeat their writings, no matter how hard they try to hide that fact.

There is a slight difference in professional standards between today and the Nineteenth Century, much less going back to the 8th Century CE.

Pretty much being a hack apologist for a given political world view is frowned upon these days, and it holds true as much for Howard Zinn as it does for Ferguson.

Ferg makes more money at it, however, so there's that.

Best,

 

[Tonifranz]

There is a slight difference in professional standards between today and the Nineteenth Century, much less going back to the 8th Century CE.

Pretty much being a hack apologist for a given political world view is frowned upon these days, and it holds true as much for Howard Zinn as it does for Ferguson.

Ferg makes more money at it, however, so there's that.

Best,

Believe me, I have read some of Ferguson's books, and I disagree a lot with his views.

I still see him as a historian. As do many of his peers, and future generation too.

After all, all historians are to one degree or another, hack apologist for political world views, whether of their own, or of others, and whether they admit it, or not. Many try to argue viewpoints. One historian argues that trade was the main engine of the world, one historian argues that lead piping lead to the collapse of the Roman Empire, one historian believes the Vikings are ruthless savages with no positive things to say about them, while another is too apologetic too them and glosses over their actions, or one that argues that the German Empire is the greatest thing since slice bread, while another that it was the worst thing since the Mongols.

These are all modern historians.

Doesn't make them any less of historians.

 

[TFSmith121]

It may make them writers....

Believe me, I have read some of Ferguson's books, and I disagree a lot with his views.

I still see him as a historian. As do many of his peers, and future generation too.

After all, all historians are to one degree or another, hack apologist for political world views, whether of their own, or of others, and whether they admit it, or not. Many try to argue viewpoints. One historian argues that trade was the main engine of the world, one historian argues that lead piping lead to the collapse of the Roman Empire, one historian believes the Vikings are ruthless savages with no positive things to say about them, while another is too apologetic too them and glosses over their actions, or one that argues that the German Empire is the greatest thing since slice bread, while another that it was the worst thing since the Mongols.

These are all modern historians.

Doesn't make them any less of historians.

It may make them writers....even historical writers.

Doesn't make them historians.

History is a social science; there is evidence to find, consider, and present, in support of a given thesis - i.e., making the case.

It's not fiction.

Best,

 

[Tonifranz]

It may make them writers....even historical writers.

Doesn't make them historians.

History is a social science; there is evidence to find, consider, and present, in support of a given thesis - i.e., making the case.

It's not fiction.

Best,

Ferguson does this. He has a thesis. He finds his evidence, considers it, and present it to support his thesis. Thus, he is a historian. Besides, you yourself admit he wrote a history book about the Rotschilds. Writing a single history book makes one a historian, I would argue, since many historians only wrote a single thing in their entire career, yet that book is what brought them recognition and acclaim as historians.

It's not fiction. What they are doing are interpreting facts. You interpret what happened.

For example, we know what happened prior to World War II. But how to interpret it? Did Hitler have a preset plan to conquer the World, as many historians in the post war era argued? Or was it simply a miscalculation of Hitler in 1939 that he thought Britain and France weren't simply going to declare war, like AJP Taylor argued in his book? Was Taylor simply being a contrarian?

Or how about the Holocaust?

Did Hitler in 1919 already envision the Holocaust? Or was the Holocaust as it happened a product of a series of events in 1939-1942, and which not even Hitler himself envisioned?

Or who really is at fault in World War I? There are as many views are there are historians out there. Some of them more valid than others. They all use facts to try to present their case.

Or what was the real cause of the fall of the Roman Empire? What was the real cause of the American Civil war?

The interpretation of various historians are many, and many of those interpretations are are colored by current events, their agendas, their political beliefs.


Look at peer reviewed history journals, and how they contradict each other, how they support and demolish each other's works. They outright accuse each other of bias, political influence, etc.


Does it make their views less valid because it was colored by politics, etc?

Not as long as they did their homework, and they did it using the historical method.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Does it make their views less valid because it was colored by politics, etc?

Not as long as they did their homework, and they did it using the historical method.

Ferguson is still a polemicist

I love Ferguson I really do and I find his books great data mines even if I do not always draw the same interpretations from the data so I agree it does not stop him being a rather good if idiosyncratic historian as well.

however

Cyclical history and the rise and fall of empires is a trope in its own right, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

Having said that, I presume some people have seen this, but others have not, and may find it an interesting thought exercise to try and come up with an AH take to take advantage of the paintings. See below for all five:

The original aim of this thread was not a discourse on the Niall (does anyone else straight away think Njál's Saga?) Ferguson

Rather do we believe in cyclic history and what 'history' might we come up with based on the premise?

For example:

In the beginning savage tribes lived in harmony with nature but over time they acquired the curse of invention...

However at first this was a good thing and led to emergence of stout yeoman farmers and pastoralist these in time built great empires...

The greatest of these was of course the United States of America but it was cursed by modern technology, indeed the whole world was cursed by the sins of wealth and greed...

One man alone saw this and he had great vision. George Cameron contracted the Lego Group to build him a race of super men and women of perfect moral purity which he named Na'vi Georgius Optimus Maximus in tribute to his own humble modesty. He then unleashed the other half of his project which were an array of bio-weapons designed to crush the cruel military-industrial complex of human oppression of the sacred natural world...

Alas it turns out Lego Genetics do not work and even bio-weapons are rather hard to get right, the surviving humans ate the Na'vi and and started to rebuild their evil industrial civilisation and thus we find ourselves in a new savage age amid the ruins of the past

Oh woe is the desolation of the great romantic vision!

The End


Okay about as seriously researched as Geoffrey of Monmouth but hey.

 

[TFSmith121]

That's not QUITE what I was thinking, but

Not quite what I was thinking, but Points for taking a shot.

Ferguson is very successful at what he (currently) does; that does not make him a historian, however. Not anymore.

Anyway, if the exhibit makes it somewhere you can see it (overall, it is a collection of the Hudson River School, not simply Cole); see it - some lovely work, with an interesting connection to US history.

Best,

 

[Tonifranz]

Not quite what I was thinking, but Points for taking a shot.

Ferguson is very successful at what he (currently) does; that does not make him a historian, however. Not anymore.
Best,

The one above you even admitted he is a historian. I'll quote it for you so you won't misquote him again.

I love Ferguson I really do and I find his books great data mines even if I do not always draw the same interpretations from the data so I agree it does not stop him being a rather good if idiosyncratic historian as well.

An idiosyncratic historian is still a historian.

He is a historian. You cannot just say he isn't just because you disagree with his views. You have said nothing other say that you disagree with what he said, and said epithets at him without a shred of proof.

 

[Roger II]

Eh, I'd say he's a historian. Just a very bad one whose polemics screw with his historian's judgement and one I would not cite on any topic except the Rothschilds.

 

[Tonifranz]

This is becoming something of shouting at each other. Perhaps we should first define what a historian is, since both of us have different conceptions of what it is?

Here are some that I manage to dig up on the web. Feel free to add to it, and even your own definition, and cite your source too.

An expert in or student of history, especially that of aparticular period, geographical region, or socialphenomenon: - Oxford Dictionary

Those who have full training and accreditation, who write critical analyses that elicit cause-and-effect relationships, who write for a specialist audience, and who publish primarily through academic presses should be called ‘historians’. – somegreymatter

historian, historiographer (a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it) – wordnet.princeton.edu


Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline. Some historians, though, are recognized by publications or training and experience
1. Herman, A. M. (1998). Occupational outlook handbook: 1998-99 edition. Indianapolis: JIST Works. Page 525.


What is a Historian?
Each historian defines his or her job, profession or calling differently. But all historians study and interpret the past. - http://www.chashcacommittees-comitesa.ca/

Answer
There are thousands of historians at work today, but they work in a wide variety of jobs and ways. Fundamentally, to be a historian you need to love digging into the raw materials of history and an enthusiasm for sharing what you find. But how and where someone works as a historian makes for a wide variety of stepping stones to a career.
To do history in a professional way generally requires an advanced degree in history or a closely related field. Historians who work at colleges and universities, for instance, typically need a doctoral degree to get a job. – teachinghistorians.org

By every definition above, Ferguson is a historian. Does he have a degree in history and writes history? Yes. Does he work at a university teaching history? Check. Does he study and interpret the past? Yes. And more.

Could he be a bad historian? Yes.

But a bad historian is still a historian.

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

TFSmith seems to have some personal vendetta against Dr. Ferguson. Why I don't know. Perhaps he's Scottish and was upset with Dr. Ferguson's rejection of Scottish independence. I kid of course.

 

[It's]

Historians as part of academia

An idiosyncratic historian is still a historian.

If, by "idiosyncratic" you mean "non-left wing", then I wholly agree with you.
Let's face it, historians are academics and therefore overwhelmingly have a left wing bias. Even those who don't may feel compelled to profess one if they know what's good for them (career-wise) because of this dominance.

In Australia there was some debate on this matter a few years ago when former prime minster John Howard criticised the academic establishment and MSM for their "black armband" view of Australian history, particularly regarding aborigines. Unfortunately, as the MSM are fellow travellers, the debate became just another pinko tirade against a non-left wing (and, in this case, conservative) politician.

The problem with historians and bias isn't so much their opinions it's how they manipulate evidence by omission and cherry-picking; sadly, this afflicts other areas of academia too.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Ferguson is a very important intellectual. Ivory towers need people like him. Just make sure to lock the tower door from the outside.

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

If, by "idiosyncratic" you mean "non-left wing", then I wholly agree with you.
Let's face it, historians are academics and therefore overwhelmingly have a left wing bias. Even those who don't may feel compelled to profess one if they know what's good for them (career-wise) because of this dominance.

In Australia there was some debate on this matter a few years ago when former prime minster John Howard criticised the academic establishment and MSM for their "black armband" view of Australian history, particularly regarding aborigines. Unfortunately, as the MSM are fellow travellers, the debate became just another pinko tirade against a non-left wing (and, in this case, conservative) politician.

The problem with historians and bias isn't so much their opinions it's how they manipulate evidence by omission and cherry-picking; sadly, this afflicts other areas of academia too.

By MSM do you mean gay people?

 

[Xenophonte]

If a person got an ...

If a person got an academic degree, a PhD or Masters in a Science (social or hard) and is dedicated to it professionally, periodically publishes articles or works of his authorship, regardless of ideological trend, if it meets the minimum standards of scientific rigor, enabling it to overcome the editorial review process and published ... then that person is a social Scientist (or an Historian).

Besides its explicit or implicit ideological trend, you would criticize are the foundations on which it bases its argument, the way his use and select his sources;
of course should include questioning the validity of his conclusions.

Finally, with respect to the initial post of this thread, I must say it is nice to see that someone cares to post something more linked to Historiography or on the Philosophy of the History ...

Unfortunately the original intention remained 'buried beneath' the discussion about the merits or demerits of a historian and the validity of their condition as such.

No discussion or mention of cyclicality in History would be complete without mention its reformulation by one of its greatest historians of the 'Anglo-Saxon world' during the twentieth century and one of the defenders and promoters of the Cyclical nature of the historical processes.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/601310/Arnold-Toynbee


https://www.questia.com/library/history/historians/arnold-j-toynbee


PS: This thread perhaps would have been better, or it should have, posted in Non-Political Chat. or maybe you it should be have requested to move it, to some Moderator.

 

[profxyz]

It's really just an interesting example of artwork in the Nineteenth Century that illustrates a common understanding of history and society; Sic transit gloria mundi and Ozymandias are other examples.

The cyclical nature of history has been a pretty common thread throughout traditional Chinese history (justified or not) - there's of course the famous words from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms: "It is a truism that what is long united must eventually divide, and what is long divided must eventually unite". It's partly due to the Taoist Yin-Yang belief, and the idea that dynasties have a certain amount of chi or 'life-force' that determines how long they last, though arguably this can be influenced by moral behavior.

The Chinese cyclical idea of history largely consists of 'Opening', 'Flourishing', 'Weakness', 'Restoration', and 'Collapse' phases. The phases are almost predetermined, in a sense: Wright, in discussing the labelling of the Qing Tongzhi 'Restoration' as such, makes the observation that 'Restoration' (zhongxing) almost always carries with it the connotation of temporary-ness: the decline is only arrested for a while (12 years for the Qing), before the dynasty continues its downward spiral.

Of course modern Chinese history has largely abandoned the cyclical idea, largely because of a larger macro narrative about 'falling behind to the West', and also because of the Marxist historical narrative (not to mention the fact that the Communist Party's reign will never ever end !)

 

[TFSmith121]

One can write about law and particular cases, and even

An idiosyncratic historian is still a historian.

He is a historian. You cannot just say he isn't just because you disagree with his views. You have said nothing other say that you disagree with what he said, and said epithets at him without a shred of proof.

One can write about law and particular cases, and even offer opinions of same, without being a practicing attorney.

History is a profession, and a craft, with standards of evidence and discourse - not unlike the law.

One can write about history, and particular instances of it, and even offer opinions of same, without being a practicing historian.

Ferguson moved on from being a historian a long time ago. I think even he would acknowledge that, although he undoubtedly appreciates the title because it is useful for how he makes a living these days.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

No more than I have against Howard Zinn...

TFSmith seems to have some personal vendetta against Dr. Ferguson. Why I don't know. Perhaps he's Scottish and was upset with Dr. Ferguson's rejection of Scottish independence. I kid of course.

No more than I have against Howard Zinn...

Ferguson makes more money than Zinn ever did, of course.

Best,