Suggestion for new member title and subject subdivision

There has been a virtual tsunami of OPs on the main recently, of how the US or someone else, rewrites history. Reading the comments, it becomes painfully clear that so many follow the drumbeat of the media or external propaganda sources designed to create confusion and facilitate pointless eruptions in argument.

I would like to suggest the following.

1. To create a new earned-title to go with Writer, Scholar and Fighter; 'Historian'.
2. Those awarded this title will not earn it simply by argument, but through honest, civil debate while offering fully authenticative references available to all.
3. These references will be based on genuine, historic documentation and not simple stories from the MSM or similarly pre-postured sources. For instance, if the debate refers to a time during the US Civil War, documentation directly from that time will carry value.
4. Interpretation of material will, as always, be subject to debate. History itself, of course, will not always be determined by the winner of any debate but, presentation, civility and honesty will be considered when awarding the title.
5. Somewhere, under one of the many umbrella subdivisions here at ATS, a new forum for history will be created and moderated by those familiar with as much subject matter as possible.

This should in no way be seen as a means to stop the debate on various subjects of history but as an alternative for those who take the subject a bit more seriously and as a show of respect to those of the membership who share this interest.

Thanks for your time.

reply to post by redoubt


I'd certainly pay more attention to those with that esteemed title.

Nice idea.

reply to post by redoubt

Those awarded this title will not earn it simply by argument, but through honest, civil debate while offering fully authenticative references available to all.

These references will be based on genuine, historic documentation and not simple stories from the MSM or similarly pre-postured sources. For instance, if the debate refers to a time during the US Civil War, documentation directly from that time will carry value

As someone with a background in history (with a degree, even ) and who tries to utilize actual historical sources whenever possible, I applaud your efforts, though I think that they're in vain. My experience is that not only are historical evidences usually disregarded, some people actually think that history is part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is that the best historical resources (and worst ones, to be honest) are not online, but are in hardcover books, which can be cited, but rarely verified by anyone reading your post. There are a number of instances that I can recall where people seemed to document a claim fairly well, but the source was questionable (one, in particular, was a guy who cited Augustine's City of God for a pretty negative quote regarding the church, and the only reason I knew that it was invalid was because I'd recently read it.)

reply to post by beezzer


Thanks, beezer

Good to see ya again!

reply to post by adjensen

As someone with a background in history (with a degree, even ) and who tries to utilize actual historical sources whenever possible, I applaud your efforts, though I think that they're in vain. My experience is that not only are historical evidences usually disregarded, some people actually think that history is part of the problem.

Agreed... as well with other points you made. But... it seems like a good place to begin here. ATS has a lot of good, knowledgeable members but, they can and do often get buried under the mudslide at times.

Thanks for the reply

Excellent idea, I am 100% for this, May I make a suggestion, that, one who seeks or uses the web as there source, not use Wikipedia as their main source but as a reference to their subject matter.

Originally posted by bekod

Excellent idea, I am 100% for this, May I make a suggestion, that, one who seeks or uses the web as there source, not use Wikipedia as their main source but as a reference to their subject matter.

Wiki is a good place to start but... it can be a little like walking on rice paper at times when it comes to details. On many subjects, the content changes like the rising and setting of the sun.

I agree, 100%!

Thanks!

reply to post by redoubt




The problem with what you are talking about is that "Writer", "Scholar", & "Fighter" are simply titles that allow you to post in specific forums. They don't nessessarily mean that you are a quality writer, a great debater, or an decent researcher.

I think what you are suggesting should be something more in the form of a badge that is displayed in in a members profile. The problem with the whole thing is that if you have a "historian" badge, wouldn't it only be fair to recognize other such fields...perhaps a philosopher's badge, an outer space expert badge, a cryptologist badge...The only fair way to implement something like what you are talking about is to have a badge for each forum on ATS...oh wait...they already have them...they are Subject Matter Expert Badges...as seen on several members profiles.

reply to post by isyeye

I think what you are suggesting should be something more in the form of a badge that is displayed in in a members profile. The problem with the whole thing is that if you have a "historian" badge, wouldn't it only be fair to recognize other such fields...perhaps a philosopher's badge, an outer space expert badge, a cryptologist badge...The only fair way to implement something like what you are talking about is to have a badge for each forum on ATS...oh wait...they already have them...they are Subject Matter Expert Badges...as seen on several members profiles.

Speaking for myself only, I hold history as the guideposts to the future. It has always been our curse, as a species, to neglect our past mistakes... only to repeat them time and again. So, from there, you might surmise that my belief is that if we had a better understanding of our past, we might do better with that tomorrow.

I have seen many excellent debates here on history and I have seen insensible, flame wars on it. Because of my position on the subject, I think it worthy of more attentions and some accountability. By offering a title for those who approach honestly and in a civil manner, there is a slight chance that we may actually come away with something more than... feeling like we had just exited from the Roman arena.

That's my spot. Thanks for your thoughts and the reply

History books are written by the victors who aren't always truthful.
Lots of times $$$$ decides what is 'historical fact'.
'Historical sources' contradict each other many times.
The older I get .. the more I see this is true ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
History books are written by the victors who aren't always truthful.
Lots of times $$$$ decides what is 'historical fact'.
'Historical sources' contradict each other many times.
The older I get .. the more I see this is true ...

All of that is true.

But... here we are. We have a chance to do better. We are in a new age where all these tools and all the access could mean something more.

The older I get... the more I realize how many years I wasted doing nothing.

Thanks

To perhaps, clarify the OP's point, a historian would discern the historical aspects in question while many of us simply regurgitate.

A true historian would be impartial, unbiased.

A tough honour to get, yet a possible invaluable resource.

Originally posted by beezzer
To perhaps, clarify the OP's point, a historian would discern the historical aspects in question while many of us simply regurgitate.

A true historian would be impartial, unbiased.

A tough honour to get, yet a possible invaluable resource.

Unbiased is a bi**ch, lol!

But... yeah, like that. At least the effort would have to count for something.

It would be a title one would earn and carry with honor.

Originally posted by beezzer
To perhaps, clarify the OP's point, a historian would discern the historical aspects in question while many of us simply regurgitate.

A true historian would be impartial, unbiased.

A tough honour to get, yet a possible invaluable resource.

But people do not want real history as it is not as interesting and usually conflicts with what youtube scholars "know".
Seriously if you wrote a thread about the Louisiana purchase in just a straightforward manner it would probably be dead by page 2.
Now if you wrote one claiming that illuminati this and that, it would go on for a while.

But this is supposed to be a "conspiracy" site so straightforward unbiased history does not work well with it. But on the otherhand there are more topics becoming non-approved conspiracy theories by the people in charge, so who knows.

what is it with people here wanting titles ?
If you post good information then you should be proud
A title means nothing , a person with 21 posts could have a mega breakthrough thread so why should we strive for titles ?

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by beezzer
To perhaps, clarify the OP's point, a historian would discern the historical aspects in question while many of us simply regurgitate.

A true historian would be impartial, unbiased.

A tough honour to get, yet a possible invaluable resource.

But people do not want real history as it is not as interesting and usually conflicts with what youtube scholars "know".
Seriously if you wrote a thread about the Louisiana purchase in just a straightforward manner it would probably be dead by page 2.
Now if you wrote one claiming that illuminati this and that, it would go on for a while.

You mean like this? (From a somewhat less discerning website)

Louisiana Purchase declared Illegal - Unis Etats au France

Illuminati backed jacoban Napoleon Bonaparte negotiated illegally on behalf of the French.

Napoleon Bonaparte was the Illuminati President of one third of North America in 1795.

It was a battle for control of the new world between the French Workers of the light and the English.

Napoleon was a New Man of destiny - that lead one third of the stars of heaven (united states) into a bloody masonic war of liberation. - manifest destiny to the sea (great beast rising up).

You hear that, you midwesterners? You better start learning how to speak French!

reply to post by FlyersFan


History books may be written by victors, but books, pamphlets, and archeological finds from the period in question are not as biased as things created after the fact. In terms of what can be confirmed by archeological digs and so on, in fact these have a tendancy to refute some perceptions held for generations. There was a time, for instance, where all the fiction and history we had available, taught us that the Vikings were nothing more than savages, with unkempt appearance, constanly reeking of blood and urine, and whacked off thier heads on beserker mushrooms who stole wives, and raped entire villiages of women, before making off with vast tonnages of Gold, metals, fabrics and anything else you could fit in a boat which was also supposed to contain these bloodthirsty behemoths.

After more careful and current study, we know that Vikings in actual fact were certainly fearsome warriors, but they also were very clean,looked after thier hair, treated thier women well, and were actually sought after as mates by many females of the period, because local males in the UK at that time were pretty smelly and unclean themselves, and boisterously chauvinistic. We know also that thier stories, thier sagas are some of the oldest examples of story telling in all of Europe, making them one of the more advanced tribes living at the time. From barbarian horde of screaming skull takers, to hansome and desireable mate, all of that from the work of historians. History can be a valuable tool as well as a sabotaged signpost!