European way to world primacy.

Well, Parnell and Al -Jassas. The later of You have thought about this for years, but can You perhaps, before reading further, guess what my objections may be like?

At my university lectures we aren't given the 'grand narrative' spiel. I tend to rather ineloquently manage that by myself. Even the question 'European way to world primacy' would invoke 2,000 objections and many puzzled faces if put before most of the history academics in my college!

Originally posted by fantasus Originally posted by Parnell At my university lectures we aren't given the 'grand narrative' spiel. I tend to rather ineloquently manage that by myself. Even the question 'European way to world primacy' would invoke 2,000 objections and many puzzled faces if put before most of the history academics in my college! No doubtg You are right about that.Perhaps we even may go as far as to say "the grand narrative" is "the big evil" for some. To some extent I even understand them (or You?) , that there may be a danger of completely "eliminating" human independent action and give a false impression that everything and every detail can be set on some sort of formula. Perhaps I think it is also possible to go to far in the "opposite" - to occupy oneselves exclusively with details, not even daring to even think there might be something else. I have this little suspicion (partly from experience) that some part of academia are there.

Originally posted by Parnell History is a science and an art, I'd tend to believe. It is an art in that its partly a construct of the eye of the beholder, and its a science in that its partly objective. I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive.

Edited by drgonzaga - 02-Jun-2009 at 16:08

Fantasus inquired:

Here is a question: Is not the loss of confidence the harbinger of decadence within a cultural milieu?

And herein lieth the vast divergence between historian and philosopher. Historians do not posit such unintelligible sequences of words. Needlessly complex and vain words seem to be the favourite past-time of philosophers and political scientists. Sure beats having to dig for documents in archives!

Originally posted by drgonzaga Fantasus inquired: "Ok, if You are right and some big bad "grand narrative" obscures some "true character", then let us know more about this other truth (the truth of history or one of them?)!"   An interesting query and a self-contained connundrum

Thank God! Someone else who does NOT consider Gibbons a pleasure to read. I thought I was delusional when I read that. And, needless to say, I'd choose to study someplace that wasn't in England. Well, I did as a matter of fact.

I don't have to do that any more though. I can read and study history for pleasure instead of being force-fed Gibbons as I was in my misspent youth.  I can read Stobart instead.  Ah, the joys of being a "grown-up". 

Originally posted by lirelou Gawd! Both Colonel and Parnell judge Gibbons "a pleasure to read"!  I must be the only heretic in the house. I find him turgid, but good for inducing sleep. Yes, literary allusion was the style of the times, but his is insufferable. Why not call a rose a rose? (Or the Pope the Pope?)  As regards being an attack on Christianity, I read it more as laying the basis for justifying the break with the Roman Catholic church. Sorry, only vaguely related to the topic at hand. But I had to get that off my chest. Were I to be offered a scholarship to the European University of my choice in some future life, I'd opt for Montpelier, Salamanca, or Coimbra over Oxford, or anywhere else they still read Gibbons. (Shudder!)

Scott? I assume that is intended as an insult but I'll not react in kind.

As literature, I have read his work, of course. However, they happen to be something known as FICTION. 

I am quite capable of reading historical sources such as Barbour's The Brus and Fordun's Scotichronicon, thank you very much.  Or for something more modern my own preference is Barrow's Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland. (I've quoted all three on the forum on more than one occasion)

As far as The Invention of Scotland: Myth and History the absurd man seemed to think he was the only one to know that the philabeg is a modern invention.  The amusing thing is that a certain number of readers take him at his word that no one else ever noticed it. Let me tell you though, they're one heck of a lot easier to put on than a belted plaid. Ask any man who's worn both--I can't testify as to it myself since WOMEN don't wear either. As for his hatred of devolution and the move toward independence, he's just another anti-Scottish Englishman. There are too many to get excited about one. His arguments with almost everyone in the English establishment were more amusing.

PS. I wonder why you think I'd be a Macaulay "man".  (I'm assuming you meant Thomas Babington Macaulay--if you meant someone else then ignore the following)

First, it's hard to be a Macaulay man when I'm not a man.  Second, he was English educated at Cambridge--another typical Englishman really. Third, although I do NOT love the Stewarts I hardly agree that the usurpment of James II by William and Mary was a good thing--quite the contrary it brought many, many years of increased oppression of Catholics and severe oppression of the Scots and Irish.  (I can be considered a Jacobite only in that I despise the Hanovers and William of Orange even more) Fourth, his worship of Whigs was, to put it mildly, excessive although at least he wasn't exactly for the oppression of the working class although his anthems about how wonderful 1830 working conditions were do leave me shaking my head. Fifth, I'm hardly an admirer of what he did in India. Mind you, his prose is more readable than Gibbons, but since they wrote on entirely different periods that doesn't really relate.

You aren't the only one to have ever set foot in a university.

Originally posted by Parnell For shame! Our teacher told us to 'read Gibbon with head tilted in utter reverence, one chapter at a time'. Now there was someone who revered Gibbon. I just enjoy his use of language more than anything, and am quite conscious of how old the volumes are when I read it. The whole 'pioneer' buzz and all that. The use of jargon is a case in point. Jargon obfuscates. History attempts to clarify. The twain should never meet. When they do its bound to be a slow death sentance (Admittedly, this is why I veer away from economic and feminist history - yoink!) P.S- FloridaGuy, You might want to add Trinity College Dublin along with that list of universities to avoid. Gibbon might as well have a shrine here (We actually have a statue to a historian universally considered to be boring, vain, stiff, disinteresting and a complete geek. W.E. Lecky. And he's another guy I actually quite liked ) P.P.S- JR, thought you would have been a Macauly man? Or at least a proud adherent to the historical novels of Walter Scott? Your dislike for English historians is quite understandable... I shall say no more than Hugh Trevor-Roper!

Lirelou, I didn't mean to ignore your comment. Sorry that I missed this comment addressed to me:

The Spanish conquest of the Americas was testimony of their military might. Indeed, even on the European continent, their land forces were invincible until 1627 (Breda?), ergo the reason the United Provinces and Britain developed into maritime powers.

Since I SAID there was growth in military might during that period, I'd be interested in knowing what you're arguing with me about.  I agree that it was an area of very substantial growth. Military might was EXACTLY why I said Europe prevailed during the period in question.

And since the Sikh wars were during a different period that what I was discussing, they're irrelevant. There were improvements in organization later but I see no sign of it that early. The Anglo-Sikh War was substantially later.



Edited by JRScotia - 03-Jun-2009 at 05:01

By the 1763 Britain became what France was 100 years ago.

And this was a GOOD thing? One of the most oppressive powers to ever rise in the history of the world. I'm not struck with admiration.

You know I don't want Scotland out of GB because of Culloden, or the many Highland massacres, or because the 1707 union was a joke in which the Scots were bought and sold (although that doesn't help). But I am so proud of all the things we did together. Sending Scots to oppress Ireland (God, the shame!), Iraq, Trident, Cash for Peerages, Slavery, imprisoning Ghandi, Suez, the Highland Clearances, the Black and Tans, the Irish Potato Famine, the genocide of numerous N. American, Australian and African peoples, the Boxer (opium) Rebellion, arming Saddam, selling Hawks to Indonesia for murder in East Timor to name but a few. Oh, yes. Good times were had by all.

PS *sigh* Time for a break when it gets under my skin that badly.




Edited by JRScotia - 03-Jun-2009 at 04:52