The Course of Empire

TFSmith121

Banned
Bolded for the win

Xenophonte said:
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).

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 ... :)
Click to expand...

Bolded for the win...

As far as the second graph above, ad astra per allia porci.;)

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Thanks - interesting point...

profxyz said:
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 :p!)
Click to expand...


Thanks - interesting point... is there a Chinese equivalent of Cole's series?

Your last sentence now has this running through my head:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U2zJOryHKQ

Sincere apologies.;)

Best,
 

Tonifranz

TFSmith121 said:
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,
Click to expand...

I have made definitions about what history is, and put links for you to read. Those definitions, of course, came from the web, but many of them came from books and journals. Your definition perhaps is what makes a good historian.

Now give me a definition from a linked sources. They all differ, and share some characteristics.

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

I could get more from my books, but I have no time right now.

By this criteria, Dr Fergurson meets every definition of what a practicing historian is. Does he write about history? Yes. Does he have an advanced degree of history? Yes. Is he considered by many people an authority of his field? Yes. Does he teach history? Yes. Does he analyze, etc? Yes. Does he use the historical method to support his thesis? Yes.

Does that mean I agree with all that conclusions that he gave based on the sources that he quotes? No, I do not. Some of his conclusions are questionable.

Still, he is a historian, by every definition I have heard, and quoted.

In a profession, for example, that of law, if you pass the bar examinations, you are an attorney, until you are disbarred for some reason. For example, Obama is a lawyer, but Clinton is not. Why? Clinton was disbarred by the Arkansas bar for the Lewinski affair, but Obama could simply resume his law practice after leaving office.

In history, once you get the title and the recognition, how could you lose it? You can't. Unless of course, you get convicted in court for dishonesty or something like that like what happened to David Irving. Or if the University that you came from stripped you of your academic degree, like what happened to Dr Mengele's doctorate after World War II.

By your own admission, he was a historian, but he ceased to be. But he could easily publish a book that would impress you tomorrow and then you would say that he resumed practice as a historian.

I would say that he never ceased to be a historian in the first place, since he never did anything that would warrant his being stripped of his degree, or things like that.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, I prefer the good surgeon to the quack, but that's me

Tonifranz said:
I have made definitions about what history is, and put links for you to read. Those definitions, of course, came from the web, but many of them came from books and journals. Your definition perhaps is what makes a good historian.
Click to expand...

Well, I prefer the good surgeon to the quack, but that's me...;)

Best,
 

Tonifranz

TFSmith121 said:
Well, I prefer the good surgeon to the quack, but that's me...;)

Best,
Click to expand...

That's true. But a quack in medicine is someone who does not know anything, isn't trained in medicine, etc. A quack in history, by analogy, is someone who does not follow the historical method, is not trained at all in history, does not read much, and simply spouts things without any sources at all. And believe me, there are tons of those.

Dr Ferguson is not one of them. Unless he falsified his degree in history, and it turned out that he had no prior training at all, and that he does not know how to conduct research and was totally ignorant of the historical method. There is no proof that this is the case.

He is still a historian. You admitted it that he was before, and I say he didn't lose it just because of what he recently wrote. Unless he was stripped of his degree by his university, of course!:D Or was convicted of a crime similar to that of David Irving.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
A quack can also be someone who knows better, but

Tonifranz said:
That's true. But a quack in medicine is someone who does not know anything, isn't trained in medicine, etc. A quack in history, by analogy, is someone who does not follow the historical method, is not trained at all in history, does not read much, and simply spouts things without any sources at all. And believe me, there are tons of those.
Click to expand...

A quack can also be someone who knows better, but choses to sell snake oil because it is easier than actually practicing medicine and it makes them more money.;)

None of which has much to do with Thomas Cole, whose work The Course of Empire I thought might be of interest to some of the usual suspects here at Ian's Pub.

Best,
 

Emperor Palpatine

Tonifranz said:
That's true. But a quack in medicine is someone who does not know anything, isn't trained in medicine, etc. A quack in history, by analogy, is someone who does not follow the historical method, is not trained at all in history, does not read much, and simply spouts things without any sources at all. And believe me, there are tons of those.
Click to expand...

Pat Buchanan comes to mind.
 

Tonifranz

TFSmith121 said:
A quack can also be someone who knows better, but choses to sell snake oil because it is easier than actually practicing medicine and it makes them more money.;)

None of which has much to do with Thomas Cole, whose work The Course of Empire I thought might be of interest to some of the usual suspects here at Ian's Pub.

Best,
Click to expand...

No, what you're defining is someone who is unprofessional, unethical, etc. It doesn't make them a quack. For example, a lawyer who makes questionable practices in spite of knowing it's wrong, is still a lawyer until he is disbarred, and not a quack, as long as he still have the qualifications.

Here's a definition of quackery.

According to dictionary.com

Quackery is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. Random House Dictionary describes a "quack" as a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan"

Notice the words fraudulent, ignorant, pretender to medical skill. Quacks pretend to something they don't have. Using it to history, it is those historians that pretend to be historians, but don't have the qualifications.

By its very definition, if you really have the skill and training of something you
claim to have, regardless of how you use it, even if it's unethical, you cannot be a quack, since you are what you claim to be.

You admitted that Dr Ferguson had those qualifications of a historian, therefore he cannot fraudulently claim that he is a historian.

Anyway, I don't think Dr Ferguson's qualifications as a historian can be questioned, unless you want to claim that he fraudulently obtained his degrees. The conclusions that he reached from his books can be, of course be questioned, but not the fact that he is a historian.

As I said, once you get the status of a historian, I don't think you can lose it unless you were specifically convicted in court of something like what David Irving did, or his degree in history was revoked.

The reason I dragged this discussion for so long is because I don't think you can simply say someone isn't a professional anymore just because he wrote something not up to your standards. Doctor Ferguson has earned his status as a historian, and it would take more than a few polemical books, in my opinion, to remove that status.


As for Thomas Cole, I broadly agree with the cyclical history view of things, well, as regards to nations and empires. Nations, Dynasties and empires rise and fall, then another nation and empire takes it place. Some of those happens very fast, others would take a long long time.

However, the broad historical processes of history is not cyclical. I don't think we will revert back to the Stone Age anytime soon. Even in a nuclear holocaust, enough knowledge in the form of books would survive to make sure that we won't be set that far back.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, fair enough, but I disagree...

Tonifranz said:
The reason I dragged this discussion for so long is because I don't think you can simply say someone isn't a professional anymore just because he wrote something not up to your standards. Doctor Ferguson has earned his status as a historian, and it would take more than a few polemical books, in my opinion, to remove that status.
Click to expand...

Well, fair enough, but I disagree... either one does the job with intellectual honesty and up to the standards of the profession, or one should go home...;)

Anyway, I liked the Cole exhibit. Worth seeing if it shows up in your town.

Best,
 

Tonifranz

TFSmith121 said:
Well, fair enough, but I disagree... either one does the job with intellectual honesty and up to the standards of the profession, or one should go home...;)

Anyway, I liked the Cole exhibit. Worth seeing if it shows up in your town.

Best,
Click to expand...

True, but who will decide if he is doing his job or not? Many people, and many of his peers peers, violently disagree with you on your assessment and believe him to be doing his job with intellectual honesty, as many also agree with you that he does not. So who is to determine who is right and wrong? Let someone sue him and have a judge receive evidence from his detractors and from Ferguson and decide on the evidence if he remains fit to be a historian. Just like what happened to David Irving, the infamous holocaust denier.

You believe him to be a bad historian. I have no issue with that. That's your opinion. But if declare him not to be a historian, I take issue with that because you declare as fact something which is not so. There is no court of law, or any college that has any authority over him, that found him guilty of anything that would strip him of his status as a historian.

Until then, he remains a historian. Innocent until proven guilty after all and due process.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top