HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History
History Extension Debating Thread (ie. how to develop your "voice")
katie,rinos:
Hey, This is a really cool idea. Not sure if I’m right but this is what I think:
Can history be objective?
I believe that history can never be 100% objective as historians are always affected by their personal beliefs, values and opinions on issues. Sources that were made in the past can often be biased and as historians can only write based on past sources (especially when writing about ancient history), they can never be truly objective. Most historians begin their research with a question in mind, and therefore when choosing their sources, they are influenced by this prior question and pre-imagined hypothesis.
The Ancient Historians didn’t even know what source analysis was, and couldn’t be objective as it wasn’t even thought about yet. Throughout history, most historians have strived for objectivity but even Von Ranke (the father of scientific history) was subjective as he aimed to find the signature of God through history. Macaulay’s teleological approach to history wished to show how English history was progressing and improving. Therefore, he was influenced by these ideas while conducting his research and writing his works. The school of Public history is subjective as they are often funded by the government and provide views in the context of current political debates. Post Modernists believe that there is no real truth and rarely use footnotes. One historian (could have been schama-not sure) that we studied in class mixed narratives with his histories as he believed that if there was no truth it didn’t really matter if everything was historically correct. Obviously this would be greatly subjective. Therefore, I don’t really believe that history can ever be objective, no matter how hard a historian may try.
My Opinion on Historical Fiction
I actually used to really love it but I haven’t read a lot in ages. I’m doing the Book Thief as one of my related texts for English and focussing on the Holocaust for my history extension major, and I really like the book. I also love the book War Horse by Micheal Morpurgo which is based off WW1 and has a movie adaptation. I read the YA book Gemina last holidays and it mentioned the battle of Thermopylae which was really cool when I got to class the next term and we were talking about it in Sparta. However, I could understand how it could be really annoying if it isn’t historically accurate or you couldn’t tell between fact and fiction. I found that especially when I was younger, this was a lot easier for me to read about history then reading a long, boring history book.
I think I might do the other two questions later. Thanks, Susie. This will actually be really good help for my trials coming up.
sudodds:
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---Hey, This is a really cool idea. Not sure if I’m right but this is what I think:
--- End quote ---
So glad you think so!! And well, as a history extension student you should know that "right" is a very subjective term ;) Never doubt your opinion - seek to validate it further, and assess new evidence (as you are doing in this thread!) - but never doubt it :)
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---Can history be objective?
I believe that history can never be 100% objective as historians are always affected by their personal beliefs, values and opinions on issues. Sources that were made in the past can often be biased and as historians can only write based on past sources (especially when writing about ancient history), they can never be truly objective.
--- End quote ---
I'd go as far as to suggest that ALL sources from the past are "biased" (though just a technical thing - I suggest being more specific about 'bias' in your essays - ideological adherence, personal prejudice, political agenda works better!). As Keith Jenkins states, as humans we are essentially "ideologically positioned workers" - everything that we do is inherently motivated by ideology. If you want to go into this further, I suggest watching this short clip from Slavoj Zizek's 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology' (I'd actually recommend watching the whole thing! Such a mindfuck, but sooooo interesting). He goes into how our whole perception of reality is impacted by ideology, which in turn will have a critical impact upon not only the way historical actors have produced sources, but historical producers have produced history!
Furthermore, I think another aspect that is important to consider is that not only are the sources that we have inherently ideological, personal and political, but for a huge amount of history - white, male and privileged! Not even commenting on todays socio-cultural climate in regards to class, race and gender, it is undeniable that throughout history rich, white men were all that anyone seemed to care about, and by extension wrote about. Information on the lower classes, women or other minorities just wasn't considered important enough to record - and thus history "forgot" about them! As John Vincent states "history is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts... no evidence, no history. Imperfect evidence, imperfect history". As history is 'technically' about evidence (that in itself is definitely up for debate, but I'll leave it for now ;)), if we are missing evidence because no one bothered to keep it alive, then how is it possible to write an objective history?
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---Most historians begin their research with a question in mind, and therefore when choosing their sources, they are influenced by this prior question and pre-imagined hypothesis.
--- End quote ---
DEFINITELY! If you haven't read EH Carr's 'What is History?' I suggest giving it a go - super short read, but sooooo informative (and a great source to incorporate in the Section I of the exam!) - he talks about this within the first chapter I think, with his fishing analogy :) Essentially what he is saying is that historians choose a particular area (historical period), then a lake within that area (their focus). They then hop into a boat (their investigation), travelling towards a particular spot in the lake (their hypothesis). They get out their rod, and put a particular bait on the end of it (research methodology), catching and eating particular fish (sources that suit their hypothesis), which for the most part ignoring the undesirable ones.
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---The Ancient Historians didn’t even know what source analysis was, and couldn’t be objective as it wasn’t even thought about yet.
--- End quote ---
That's a bit harsh! And I'm not sure I agree with you here (though I'm sure that is a very common misconception!). The Ancient Historians definitely knew the importance of sources, and how critical they were to investigation. Herodotus is the "father of history" for a reason! Yeah, he sometimes made up sources (like when he suggested that he spoke to a giant...), HOWEVER the fact that he felt the need to make up sources suggests that he understood how critical sources were to the study of history - they are what differentiates history from historical fiction in many ways. One of his most famous quotes even alludes to this: "I am bound to tell what I am told, but not in every case to believe it."
If you look at the work of Herodotus (and many other Ancient historians), they reference sources throughout their works. For example, Cassius Dio references the now long lost diaries of Agrippina the Younger in his account of her life. Some ancient historians even assess the reliability of their sources! Both Tacitus and Suetonius (though the latter is not technically a historian - rather a biographer) are examples of this.
Overall I think I support Mary Beard's point of view - "It is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors."
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---Throughout history, most historians have strived for objectivity but even Von Ranke (the father of scientific history) was subjective as he aimed to find the signature of God through history. Macaulay’s teleological approach to history wished to show how English history was progressing and improving. Therefore, he was influenced by these ideas while conducting his research and writing his works. The school of Public history is subjective as they are often funded by the government and provide views in the context of current political debates.
--- End quote ---
Agree with everything here :) Interesting fact though - Despite the fact that Von Ranke has basically become the most famous empiricist (and don't get me wrong - he was an empiricist), his most famous quote, that he was writing about the past "as it actually was", is most likely a mistranslation of German! It is believed that he actually said "as it essentially was" - which is VERY different. You could also add that public history is also often written for entertainment, and to "make money" - thus are more likely to present a more dramatic account of events (re. the entire work of Bill O'Reilly, who himself even admits that if you write exciting history you can sell a lot of copies and have movies made about them - as he has for many of his historical works).
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---Post Modernists believe that there is no real truth and rarely use footnotes.
--- End quote ---
This isn't just a fault of postmodernists (and not even all postmodernist!) - A lot of popular/public historians do the same thing. Some publishing houses consider too many footnotes to distract the reader, which puts off consumers from purchasing the book, so historians are instructed to limit their use of them, or only use them for menial background detail (for example Bill O'Reilly uses footnotes to tell us the actual hair colour of Ronald Reagan... fun fact my 2500 word major work had more footnotes than an entire Bill O'Reilly work). I also think that you need to remember that there aren't many postmodernist historians, more so postmodernist historiographers. Postmodernists typically don't write history (because as you said, they don't believe that there is one, accurate portrayal), but more so analyse and criticise the constructions of other histories. Thus as their work is more so theory based, a theory they themselves have developed, it is understandable that they have comparatively less sources.
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---One historian (could have been schama-not sure) that we studied in class mixed narratives with his histories as he believed that if there was no truth it didn’t really matter if everything was historically correct.
--- End quote ---
Interesting point! And yes that was Simon Schama who did that :) Definitely that would impact upon the factual reliability, however do you think the fact that he disclosed this makes a difference?
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---Obviously this would be greatly subjective. Therefore, I don’t really believe that history can ever be objective, no matter how hard a historian may try.
--- End quote ---
Overall I agree with this, and you make some awesome points :) Well done! Now onto the next topic :D
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---My Opinion on Historical Fiction
I actually used to really love it but I haven’t read a lot in ages. I’m doing the Book Thief as one of my related texts for English and focussing on the Holocaust for my history extension major, and I really like the book.
--- End quote ---
It is a great book :) Though I'm still not a fan of historical fiction as a genre, I can definitely appreciate the Book Thief :) (also awesome related text idea btw ;) ). Also a lot of really interesting historiographical issues and concerns with the history of the Holocaust! Sounds like a super interesting major work topic! Super interested to hear more about your thesis - did you have a look at David Irving and the whole concept of 'Holocaust Denial'? Really demonstrates the slippery slope of postmodernism!
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---I also love the book War Horse by Micheal Morpurgo which is based off WW1 and has a movie adaptation. I read the YA book Gemina last holidays and it mentioned the battle of Thermopylae which was really cool when I got to class the next term and we were talking about it in Sparta.
--- End quote ---
Interesting! I haven't watched/read either of those (however I have heard of War Horse - that was the one with Tom Hiddleston right? Wasn't the horse nominated for an Oscar?). I will admit, the one thing that I do like about historical fiction is that if you have already studied the period it becomes so much more immersive as a narrative (but then that one blatant historical inaccuracy pops up and then I'm just pissed off hahaha)
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---However, I could understand how it could be really annoying if it isn’t historically accurate or you couldn’t tell between fact and fiction. I found that especially when I was younger, this was a lot easier for me to read about history then reading a long, boring history book.
--- End quote ---
I think I maybe mentioned this earlier in response to this, but I'll say it again anyway - I can definitely appreciate the merit of historical fiction in that it "opens" up the world of history to people in a more accessible format! However I just think that sometimes, it can do more harm than good as it opens them up to a false narrative. Disney's 'Pocahontas' is a good example of this - kids are being fed a highly romanticised version of events, which clouds the significance of the events and personalities themselves (plus just the portrayal of a romance between Pocahontas and her alleged rapist is pretty gross... As Robert Eaglestaff, principal of the American Indian Heritage School in Seattle states: ""It's like trying to teach about the Holocaust and putting in a nice story about Anne Frank falling in love with a German officer ... You can't pretend everything was O.K. between the Germans and the Jews.")
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on June 30, 2017, 10:50:31 pm ---I think I might do the other two questions later. Thanks, Susie. This will actually be really good help for my trials coming up.
--- End quote ---
AWESOME! Looking forward to it Katie :D Thanks so much for sharing your opinions so far, can't wait to hear the rest of them ;)
katie,rinos:
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---I'd go as far as to suggest that ALL sources from the past are "biased" (though just a technical thing - I suggest being more specific about 'bias' in your essays - ideological adherence, personal prejudice, political agenda works better!). As Keith Jenkins states, as humans we are essentially "ideologically positioned workers" - everything that we do is inherently motivated by ideology. If you want to go into this further, I suggest watching this short clip from Slavoj Zizek's 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology' (I'd actually recommend watching the whole thing! Such a mindfuck, but sooooo interesting). He goes into how our whole perception of reality is impacted by ideology, which in turn will have a critical impact upon not only the way historical actors have produced sources, but historical producers have produced history!
--- End quote ---
I just watched the video it was so interesting and my mind is blown. I might try to watch the whole thing in the holidays. :)
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---Furthermore, I think another aspect that is important to consider is that not only are the sources that we have inherently ideological, personal and political, but for a huge amount of history - white, male and privileged! Not even commenting on todays socio-cultural climate in regards to class, race and gender, it is undeniable that throughout history rich, white men were all that anyone seemed to care about, and by extension wrote about. Information on the lower classes, women or other minorities just wasn't considered important enough to record - and thus history "forgot" about them!
--- End quote ---
I completely forgot about this. We were commenting in History Extension the other day about how the post modernists (and indeed most of our What is History historians) and all our Kennedy historians are all white, middle aged men.
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---
DEFINITELY! If you haven't read EH Carr's 'What is History?' I suggest giving it a go - super short read, but sooooo informative (and a great source to incorporate in the Section I of the exam!) - he talks about this within the first chapter I think, with his fishing analogy :) Essentially what he is saying is that historians choose a particular area (historical period), then a lake within that area (their focus). They then hop into a boat (their investigation), travelling towards a particular spot in the lake (their hypothesis). They get out their rod, and put a particular bait on the end of it (research methodology), catching and eating particular fish (sources that suit their hypothesis), which for the most part ignoring the undesirable ones.
--- End quote ---
We studied EH Carr for the What is History? section, towards the start of the year. I might try and read it again though to refresh it. Your description of the fishmonger analogy is really good. Thanks :)
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---That's a bit harsh! And I'm not sure I agree with you here (though I'm sure that is a very common misconception!). The Ancient Historians definitely knew the importance of sources, and how critical they were to investigation. Herodotus is the "father of history" for a reason! Yeah, he sometimes made up sources (like when he suggested that he spoke to a giant...), HOWEVER the fact that he felt the need to make up sources suggests that he understood how critical sources were to the study of history - they are what differentiates history from historical fiction in many ways. One of his most famous quotes even alludes to this: "I am bound to tell what I am told, but not in every case to believe it."
If you look at the work of Herodotus (and many other Ancient historians), they reference sources throughout their works. For example, Cassius Dio references the now long lost diaries of Agrippina the Younger in his account of her life. Some ancient historians even assess the reliability of their sources! Both Tacitus and Suetonius (though the latter is not technically a historian - rather a biographer) are examples of this.
Overall I think I support Mary Beard's point of view - "It is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors."
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I agree with you on this. I just always thought that they didn't know how to be objective, however if the historian understand how critical sources were, referenced them and assessed them, they are trying to be objective. Do you believe Suetonius was trying to be objective, as my class has always been told to be careful of his bias. My Ancient teacher loves Mary Beard and I haven't heard of this quote before, but it might be useful for an essay.
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---Agree with everything here :) Interesting fact though - Despite the fact that Von Ranke has basically become the most famous empiricist (and don't get me wrong - he was an empiricist), his most famous quote, that he was writing about the past "as it actually was", is most likely a mistranslation of German! It is believed that he actually said "as it essentially was" - which is VERY different. You could also add that public history is also often written for entertainment, and to "make money" - thus are more likely to present a more dramatic account of events (re. the entire work of Bill O'Reilly, who himself even admits that if you write exciting history you can sell a lot of copies and have movies made about them - as he has for many of his historical works).
This isn't just a fault of postmodernists (and not even all postmodernist!) - A lot of popular/public historians do the same thing. Some publishing houses consider too many footnotes to distract the reader, which puts off consumers from purchasing the book, so historians are instructed to limit their use of them, or only use them for menial background detail (for example Bill O'Reilly uses footnotes to tell us the actual hair colour of Ronald Reagan... fun fact my 2500 word major work had more footnotes than an entire Bill O'Reilly work). I also think that you need to remember that there aren't many postmodernist historians, more so postmodernist historiographers. Postmodernists typically don't write history (because as you said, they don't believe that there is one, accurate portrayal), but more so analyse and criticise the constructions of other histories. Thus as their work is more so theory based, a theory they themselves have developed, it is understandable that they have comparatively less sources.
--- End quote ---
Really interesting ideas. I didn't know that some historians were told to limit their footnotes. . How many footnotes did you have-I ended up with 23. I didn't really realise that the Post Modernists were mainly historiographers but it makes sense.
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---Interesting point! And yes that was Simon Schama who did that :) Definitely that would impact upon the factual reliability, however do you think the fact that he disclosed this makes a difference?
--- End quote ---
Yeah,the fact that he told people that there were narratives mixed in, would have made a huge difference as his audience wouldn't believe it all to be fact.
katie,rinos:
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---It is a great book :) Though I'm still not a fan of historical fiction as a genre, I can definitely appreciate the Book Thief :) (also awesome related text idea btw ;) ). Also a lot of really interesting historiographical issues and concerns with the history of the Holocaust! Sounds like a super interesting major work topic! Super interested to hear more about your thesis - did you have a look at David Irving and the whole concept of 'Holocaust Denial'? Really demonstrates the slippery slope of postmodernism!
--- End quote ---
It's such a good related text for English AOS. No, I didn't actually do this question. I ended up changing my question about three times. Initially it was “Assess how perspectives of the Jewish people of the Holocaust have changed over time through media representations?” (hence the Book Thief) -but obviously it was way too broad. I ended up doing "Assess the Goldhagen v. Browning debate, focussing on why the German people of police battalion 101 were involved in the murder of the Jewish people." (I focussed on the historians context, methodology and how this affected their interpretations. It was really interesting :) )
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---Interesting! I haven't watched/read either of those (however I have heard of War Horse - that was the one with Tom Hiddleston right? Wasn't the horse nominated for an Oscar?). I will admit, the one thing that I do like about historical fiction is that if you have already studied the period it becomes so much more immersive as a narrative (but then that one blatant historical inaccuracy pops up and then I'm just pissed off hahaha)
--- End quote ---
Yeah, it did have Tom Hiddleston. I don't know if the horse was nominated for an oscar. Would be cool if it was. I haven't read a lot of historical fiction since starting history extension so I don't really know how much it would affect me now. It's great once you have actually studied the history behind it and then read the books.
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---However I just think that sometimes, it can do more harm than good as it opens them up to a false narrative. Disney's 'Pocahontas' is a good example of this - kids are being fed a highly romanticised version of events, which clouds the significance of the events and personalities themselves (plus just the portrayal of a romance between Pocahontas and her alleged rapist is pretty gross... As Robert Eaglestaff, principal of the American Indian Heritage School in Seattle states: ""It's like trying to teach about the Holocaust and putting in a nice story about Anne Frank falling in love with a German officer ... You can't pretend everything was O.K. between the Germans and the Jews.")
--- End quote ---
I've never seen Pocahontas before (one of the only Disney movies I haven't seen). But a romance between her and a rapist is gross/wrong. I understand the Holocaust example as well. It's like, Historical fiction can be really good sometimes but it needs barriers and to be fairly accurate to the societies that it is portraying. You just can't have just have false narratives like that.
--- Quote from: sudodds on June 30, 2017, 11:59:47 pm ---AWESOME! Looking forward to it Katie :D Thanks so much for sharing your opinions so far, can't wait to hear the rest of them ;)
--- End quote ---
I'll do the other's later on in the week. Thanks Susie :D, I'm also going to your Ancient lecture in the holidays so i'm really excited about that!! :) :)
sudodds:
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---I just watched the video it was so interesting and my mind is blown. I might try to watch the whole thing in the holidays. :)
--- End quote ---
So glad you found it interesting! Zizek is a beast - also a great source to use for your essays as well :) Very very interesting stuff. If you have a watch in the holidays make sure to check back here if you have any questions or opinions that you'd like to discuss!
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---I completely forgot about this. We were commenting in History Extension the other day about how the post modernists (and indeed most of our What is History historians) and all our Kennedy historians are all white, middle aged men.
--- End quote ---
There's actually a name for this type of history, known as "Big Men History" or the "Top Down Approach"! It's basically the antithesis of social history and the bottom up approach :)
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---We studied EH Carr for the What is History? section, towards the start of the year. I might try and read it again though to refresh it. Your description of the fishmonger analogy is really good. Thanks :)
--- End quote ---
'What is History?' really is the quintessential history extension text in my opinion - Carr is an authority on historiography. That book has absolutely everything you need - highly recommended :) And no worries!
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---Yeah, I agree with you on this. I just always thought that they didn't know how to be objective, however if the historian understand how critical sources were, referenced them and assessed them, they are trying to be objective. Do you believe Suetonius was trying to be objective, as my class has always been told to be careful of his bias. My Ancient teacher loves Mary Beard and I haven't heard of this quote before, but it might be useful for an essay.
--- End quote ---
See I'm not really sure anyone knows how to be objective - that's the thing. As you said before, even Von Ranke, and those who were writing after the dawn of the more "scientific" approach to history, weren't totally objective. However, I do think that in essence a lot of (though not all) historians strive towards objectivity - and that includes the Ancient Historians. Will they ever reach it - no, but I don't think that the Ancient Historians saw themselves as writing fiction, and thus believed that they were at the very least writing some form of the truth.
In terms of Suetonius, you definitely want to be careful when analysing the reliability of his (as you should be with all historians). Many have suggested that Suetonius' works are basically Ancient gossip magazines, and there is definitely merit to that interpretation. I don't think either Suetonius or Tacitus aimed to write objectively - both had a very particular purpose for the way in which they presented their interpretations of the Julio-Claudians - namely to vicariously criticise the regime they lived under, without directly criticising the current rulers (and getting into trouble. It's been a while since I read Suetonius, however if I remember correctly he often presents information as "alleged" - he doesn't present all his accounts as straight fact, but suggests that this is what he has heard from sources. That is why I think that, though their aims may not have been objectivity, source analysis was still a key aspect of their histories :)
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---Really interesting ideas. I didn't know that some historians were told to limit their footnotes. . How many footnotes did you have-I ended up with 23. I didn't really realise that the Post Modernists were mainly historiographers but it makes sense.
--- End quote ---
I had around 85 footnotes (don't be alarmed though at the drastic difference, the girl that came 1st in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize had about 30 so going crazy like me is defs not a requirement to do well :) ). I was really meticulous about my referencing, because the topic I was doing was one that was hardly ever discussed, which meant I couldn't rely on a markers previous knowledge of the issue - thus I needed to back up pretty much every point that I made. Plus I used footnotes to clarify things such as definitions, etc. etc. :)
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---Yeah,the fact that he told people that there were narratives mixed in, would have made a huge difference as his audience wouldn't believe it all to be fact.
--- End quote ---
I agree :) I think if a historian doesn't claim objectivity, and acknowledges their failings then it is acceptable. When historians start to suggest that they know the truth completely I get really skeptical.
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---It's such a good related text for English AOS. No, I didn't actually do this question. I ended up changing my question about three times. Initially it was “Assess how perspectives of the Jewish people of the Holocaust have changed over time through media representations?” (hence the Book Thief) -but obviously it was way too broad. I ended up doing "Assess the Goldhagen v. Browning debate, focussing on why the German people of police battalion 101 were involved in the murder of the Jewish people." (I focussed on the historians context, methodology and how this affected their interpretations. It was really interesting :) )
--- End quote ---
Oooo sounds interesting! I've never heard of the Goldhagen v. Browning debate :) Would love to here more about your interpretation :)
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---Yeah, it did have Tom Hiddleston. I don't know if the horse was nominated for an oscar. Would be cool if it was. I haven't read a lot of historical fiction since starting history extension so I don't really know how much it would affect me now. It's great once you have actually studied the history behind it and then read the books.
--- End quote ---
Looking into it I think that was just a meme hahaha - I think people suggested he be nominated, but the academy never officially recognised him :'( Sad times we're living in, go back to Ancient times and horses could become consul, and now their talent goes unrecognised >:(.
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---I've never seen Pocahontas before (one of the only Disney movies I haven't seen). But a romance between her and a rapist is gross/wrong. I understand the Holocaust example as well. It's like, Historical fiction can be really good sometimes but it needs barriers and to be fairly accurate to the societies that it is portraying. You just can't have just have false narratives like that.
--- End quote ---
I really liked the movie when I was younger, but studying it in history extension (originally my major work was on the disneyfication of history) definitely made me see a new side of it. It's funny, because I'm someone who wants to work in combining the mediums of history and film, either through docos or educational content - I wonder if I will end up becoming what I detest ;)
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 01, 2017, 03:07:03 pm ---I'll do the other's later on in the week. Thanks Susie :D, I'm also going to your Ancient lecture in the holidays so i'm really excited about that!! :) :)
--- End quote ---
Sounds great! Make sure to come say hi in one of the breaks! Can't wait to meet everyone ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version