tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7957591844596456899.post8680717839332468487..comments2023-10-31T03:15:15.785-07:00Comments on Curtis - Research Methods: Week 13: HistoriographiesCurtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13539327807549395128noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7957591844596456899.post-45633960000494381842009-04-06T15:05:00.000-07:002009-04-06T15:05:00.000-07:00Curtis:You do such a great job of examining the ov...Curtis:<BR/><BR/>You do such a great job of examining the overall argument of the piece. I really enjoyed reading it, in particular the breakdown you give of Victor's piece - particularly Sub/Versive Historiography. I may always associate Victor with the line "writes out of a philosophical, fascistic-paranoid, arboressent vocabulary." That pretty much sums it up. It is true that he attempts to subvert a traditional view of history in favor of staying outside of political positions. He wants a non-disciplinary nonalignment that is nonfascist. The only part I tended to disagree with is how to classify Howard's piece (you said Traditional and I said Revisionary with full disclosure). I do not know whether I am right or not, but I just felt that if he was attempting to account for distortion of views on copyright laws, then in attempting to correct the misunderstanding, he uses a revisionary historiography.Wendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15032349508396021975noreply@blogger.com