The trial exam!

[JoyMaalouf]

Hey guys! My exam is this Monday and I am constructing historians point of views on the origins and motives of the crusades.
Although I find this quite interesting, I feel as though a lot of the historians arguments are quite repetitive and I will not be able to construct a great debate using them.
Would I be allowed to use  bloggers/not qualified historians opinions about the crusades as a source to catalyse my debate? These opinions are modern and different, however like I've mentioned, they aren't legit historians

Thanks! Also good luck to anybody else sitting their trial exams!

[sudodds]

Hey guys! My exam is this Monday and I am constructing historians point of views on the origins and motives of the crusades.
Although I find this quite interesting, I feel as though a lot of the historians arguments are quite repetitive and I will not be able to construct a great debate using them.
Would I be allowed to use  bloggers/not qualified historians opinions about the crusades as a source to catalyse my debate? These opinions are modern and different, however like I've mentioned, they aren't legit historians

Thanks! Also good luck to anybody else sitting their trial exams!

Hmmm interesting question! That to be honest I'm not 100% sure of the answer to. You definitely can't use bloggers as one of your "main historians" - like they can't form the bulk of your response. However I believe they wouldn't hurt to mention them here or there, if you make it clear that they aren't a historian, and then maybe make some historiographical link because of that? Like the fact that they aren't a qualified historian means their interpretations is _______________ as it is shaped in some way by their context/methodology? Like not exactly the same, but I used John Green and 'Crash Course' as an example of popular/public history last year - I didn't say he was a historian, but I used his platform to emphasise that history is becoming more "mainstream" in a sense.

Hope this helps! Good luck with Trials!!

Susie

[JoyMaalouf]

Hmmm interesting question! That to be honest I'm not 100% sure of the answer to. You definitely can't use bloggers as one of your "main historians" - like they can't form the bulk of your response. However I believe they wouldn't hurt to mention them here or there, if you make it clear that they aren't a historian, and then maybe make some historiographical link because of that? Like the fact that they aren't a qualified historian means their interpretations is _______________ as it is shaped in some way by their context/methodology? Like not exactly the same, but I used John Green and 'Crash Course' as an example of popular/public history last year - I didn't say he was a historian, but I used his platform to emphasise that history is becoming more "mainstream" in a sense.

Hope this helps! Good luck with Trials!!

Susie

Thank you susie! I definitely won't use this as my main source of discussion haha however there's a lot of interesting contemporary articles  so I think I might do what you said and mention them as non historians! Was your question the 'who owns history' one?