this board is dead

[mattm315]

i would say as dead as the legitimacy of the Marxist dialectic in a current society

am i right or am i right?

[studybuddy7777]

i would say as dead as the legitimacy of the Marxist dialectic in a current society

am i right or am i right?

Haha yep bang on

My friend does Studies of Religion II and History Extension today so he is going to "kill it like the nazis kill jews and democracy" (his words) but nah he is going to have to put his hand in ice tonight, he has about 45 mins in between SOR II and History Ext.

This board will come alive when people vent about the paper, or you can revive it yourself! (What i did with the senior science board)

[elysepopplewell]

i would say as dead as the legitimacy of the Marxist dialectic in a current society

am i right or am i right?

I trust that you follow "Sassy Socialist Memes" on Facebook?

[sudodds]

i would say as dead as the legitimacy of the Marxist dialectic in a current society

am i right or am i right?

I disagree with this statement Wrote my whole major work upon its LEGITIMACY hahaha (bet thats SUPER suprising considering my profile picture  )

Thought the exam was pretty good actually! Section I fit SO PERFECTLY with my key source David Vincent. Here is an extract of his work:

History is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts. There is a bias in the creation of evidence, and a bias in the survival of evidence. There may be a bias in access to what survives, too. There is a bias towards the important (and self‑important), a political bias to winners against losers, a bias towards the stable and against the unstable, and perhaps a deliberate censorship of the past by the past on top of that. Before we even get to modern historians, distortion is built into the very nature of history.

This suggests a simple rule. No evidence, no history; imperfect evidence, imperfect history. Against such stark considerations, purity of motive on the part of historians today faces an uphill task. The distortions in evidence that are already there, cannot be brushed away with a broom called objectivity.

LITERALLY THE QUESTION I'm so happy haha. It also worked pretty well with Keith Jenkins, EH Carr, Derrida and Foucault also. Only annoying thing is I had trouble relating it to contemporary issues :/ Section II was okay, found the stuff about "no motives" a bit tricky to navigate around, but hopefully it still worked out Hope everyone elses experience was positive, good luck!! I'm sure you all absolutely smashed it xx What other sources did people use in the exam?

[Celeriac]

My friend does Studies of Religion II and History Extension today so he is going to "kill it like the nazis kill jews and democracy" (his words) but nah he is going to have to put his hand in ice tonight, he has about 45 mins in between SOR II and History Ext.

I had SOR2 and Extension today.
Can confirm that they will be needing ice.

[hannahferg]

Does anyone have a copy of the paper?