Why do some people refuse to consider Historians and their research? Some people seem to have issues with Historians, even "part time" Historians, who are looking for clarification, or even descriptions, of events that happened long ago through original documents and participant's accounts.... one such: "If you "historians" (I did remove my hat and put it over my heart when I said that) are capable of thinking outside the box and seeing with the clarity and perception of a mere mortal like me, then why not do it once or twice just to break the monotony? An original thought would not “completely” ruin a WWII history book, though it would certainly discredit it". and: "I am too sloppy to write a book. If I did, and there were an “I not dotted” or a “T not crossed”, I would have "real" historians coming at me like the Pharisees before Pilot. I am acutely aware of historians' ability to strain at gnats and swallow camels, but why should I cast my pearls before swine?" But, these people are usually fiction readers and are prone to take what they read quite literally, and as well, to discount documents or Historian's research as "irrelevant", if it does not jive with their opinions. They tend to be quite unwilling to consider to change their opinion, even in the face of irrefutable evidence.....They take direction only from what they read, and often, that can be changed by another author. Historians, even part time ones, tend to have a more open mind, and do not have pre-conceived, closed minded or prejudiced opinions when it comes to research. I believe other people on this site have had the same problems with some people bagging on anyone trying to get a true historical perspective, rather than a book reader's closed minded opinion.... take this poor frustrated fellow: "Historians are clueless? Are you kidding me? Who are you to say that?" and: "this may come as a surprise to you but, as a mature, intelligent adult, I do too have some innate understanding of human nature and its traits and weaknesses and really don't need those pointing out to me! I do not display undue reverence for "publication" and think, in over 80 posts, I have mentioned my own twice, possibly three times. I was simply making the point that the telling of history is a two-fold process of reporting established facts and interpreting them - the latter is a subjective process and therefore is always open to debate: the very same thing, in fact, you just said! Why must you always try to be clever?" The response to this is as close to coming from a horsesarse as could be possible! "I think the very difficulty of finding the truth lies in the level of esteem we give "authorities", in this case historians" and "If you have a brain and you can read, you have the ability to see something others have not, no matter how lofty they deem themselves". This person deems himself better and wiser the Historians, simply because he can read! This sounds personal. Who would ever say such a thing, and believe it, seriously? These kind of statements, from a person who only gets his opinions from books, whether written by "Ike" or not, shows how mis-guided and blind to evidence a person can be! It is fair to say, with good reason, that this fellow cannot be called a Historian for good reason. No true Historian, part-time or otherwise, would want that type of person associated with them, in any case... I know I would rather be "swine" than a "horsesarse" anyday! Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? And if my senses are correct, the "horsesarse" should be the 1st one to respond! wait for it..... wait for it...... lol Wait for it......
"Okay Gentlemen, there has been complaints about the tone of certain postings. please keep to the guidelines and moderate your language!' quote from moderator morse- Nov 11- seems our friend like to provoke as well as disparage Historians! Maybe this fellow is just a "sh_te-disturber" and not just a horsesarse? Does he like the conflict? Pushing people's buttons? I take it no one but me, the new guy on the block and Adamcotton, has had trouble with this topic?
Can I ask what is the point of this topic. As I see it is here to aggravate those who are generally here to help, the historians. Unless the tone of the topic changes, I will close it.
My question was at the end, I have not had any else with issues with people dishing a person doing Historical research, or Historians in general, other than adamcotten and myself. I found myself and my research under criticisim, and personally attacked by a member who refuses to take into consideration any primary research, and discounts all Historians. I am not a professional Historian, but I am a believer of proper research- primary mostly, same as doing geneology. I was wondering if anyone had comments on the topic, if they were all like this person, I would be disappointed. But I have not seen that, I have had help in my research on Friendly Fire incident of Aug 14, 1944, except for this individual- maybe one in a million. He actually started by steering me in the wrong direction, but someone corrected him. If one is not one of the original combatants, or a person doing legitimate research, then what is going on is just talk, and I've seen where this person takes talk, with other people like adam, as well as me. Maybe this is not a "hot topic", but it was meant to get a sense of if other people think and act like this person or approve of it.
