Do you believe History is valid?
- Home
- Board: /his/ - History & Humanities
- Reading: Do you believe History is valid?
Do you believe History is valid?
History is a circle.
>>1361399
it sure is
"My name is ASAC Hank Schrader and you can go fuck yourself"
What Watterson fails to take into account is that there are always competing interpretations of history.
He might be right in regards to say... a public school textbook, where the agenda & message will change with the times, but all the primary sources remain unchanged.
I view it with a great deal of scepticism, and consider the study of history to be a series of competing mythologies.
>>1361369
Only to the extent that it is validated by the material sciences like archaeology, forensic science, evolutionary biology, climatology, etc and by the most up to date theoretical models that arise out of the observed data, like economics, linguistics, comparative literature, sociology, etc.
>>1361431
I actually think his intent was satire: to show the mindset of somebody who justifies bad revisionism
>>1361431
>Thinking Calvin is a mouthpiece for Watterson
The things Calvin says are usually satire of entitled 90s children.
Everyone interested in this question really owes it to themselves to read John Lukacs' Historical Consciousness.
History is bunk.
>>1361882
Delet this!
