Debating with deniers

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 06:00 PM

The discussion about 'semite' shows exactly why i use
the phrase "anti-Jewish" in preference to "anti-Semitic"
as more accurate.

It's worth reading a book I may have mentioned here,E.H.
Carr's What is History? on some of the problems of writing
history. One that he raises is about how we decide what a
fact is. Another about just how filtered and a matter of
choice is what we call History.


   And 'what really happened' was shown to be capable of
being made problematic not only by the great divergence of
evidence common in trials but by a famous incident. (This
point is NOT meant in any way as anti-American but about
difficulties in seeking agreement about historical facts.)
That was the Rodney King incident. Tho' we also get it
every day over some sporting incident or another.

So little wonder there are ongoing disputes about historical
facts.

And there are surely innumerable events that are surely
beyond dispute.

So history is full of pitfalls.

And its frustrating to discover that writers produce books explaining what really happened about some event or other
after having done some years of research. How on earth we
layman are supposed to know, without the benefit or possibility
of sufficient research, what really happened,.................






      Ivor