GUEST,Modette - 15 Dec 15 - 01:54 PM

1: For some reason my original post has been removed, presumably by a moderator. Why?

Probably just got lost - it happens - live with it,or resend it.

2: "For the record, Teribus, my PhD was awarded by London University, as was my degree and my MA. I'm not going to reveal its subject as I am a specialist in a particular historical area.

Oh great so we just have to take your word for it do we? Then Kow-Tow to your self-proclaimed superior knowledge - please forgive me but so far you sure as hell haven't shown any. So your area of specialisation has got nothing to do with what we are talking about.

3; History isn't just about 'hard facts and knowledge', it's about those voices which are rarely recognised in 'official' accounts of events. It's about documents which, even now, have still not been released into the public domain. It's about creating a voice for those who are under-represented. It's about recognising that historians themselves have been limited in their understanding because of access restrictions and embedded prejudices."

Oh WOW where do we begin:
(a) It most certainly has got something to do with "hard facts and knowledge" History is not abstract (I know Jom thinks it is - but there again it has been proven time after time Jom just "Makes Up Shit")
(b) Tell me Modette these voices that are " rarely recognised in 'official' accounts of events" how do you verify if they are authentic? What provides their provenance? Or do you like Jom just accept them automatically at face value because they suit your own in-built prejudices?
(c) Ah so you do agree that those who wrote about this particular period in history who have had access to new material must have a far better understanding than those who wrote before that information came into the public domain which means that you must agree with Keith and myself that those writing after 1970 have a far better grip and view on the overall picture than those who wrote before.
(d) ALL views have to be represented in any attempt at understanding any event in history - you most certainly do not skew it by pushing minority views to the exclusion of all others.
(e) Tell us Modette what restrictions are you referring to and please do tell us all what your embedded prejudices are? - Oh no wait a minute you are the only historian in the world that has none - unbelievable or what? Modette the purest of the pure.

4: Teribus and Keith really do not have a full appreciation of the nature of history.

Sorry Modette but on that showing it would appear that we have a damn sight better understanding than you.