Malcolm Dunnachie Thompson wrote:
>
> huh? what? what "actual past"?
Easy. We can talk about events in the past with little or no epistemological
problems. Everyone but the uninformed or insane knows that a civil war was fought in
the United States in the late 19th century. If they don't know that, they can easily
and uncontroversially find it out. History only becomes controversial when someone
introduces the question of the meaning of the events. See: the Civil Rights
movement, Vietnam, the Enola Gay.
The other issue, of course, is that the standards of evidence used by historians
(white, male, and owners of stock certificates) are the tools of a conspiracy of
opression designed by . . . you be the judge.
********************************************************
Nicholas Dronen
Carpe Sturgeon.
http://w3.servint.com/cognigen/f/fci.cgi?dr2864423
********************************************************
>
> huh? what? what "actual past"?
Easy. We can talk about events in the past with little or no epistemological
problems. Everyone but the uninformed or insane knows that a civil war was fought in
the United States in the late 19th century. If they don't know that, they can easily
and uncontroversially find it out. History only becomes controversial when someone
introduces the question of the meaning of the events. See: the Civil Rights
movement, Vietnam, the Enola Gay.
The other issue, of course, is that the standards of evidence used by historians
(white, male, and owners of stock certificates) are the tools of a conspiracy of
opression designed by . . . you be the judge.
********************************************************
Nicholas Dronen
Carpe Sturgeon.
http://w3.servint.com/cognigen/f/fci.cgi?dr2864423
********************************************************