Flaws in Academic History

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Two interesting articles that criticize current Academic history.

 

 

This one describes on the why History taught in college is so flawed-they don't teach you how to verify facts and back "eye Witness Accounts" and such sources with other reliable sources to increase credibility.

http://cafe.elharo.com/web/academic-prohibitions-on-wikipedia-are-misguided/

 

This other article explains how Amateur Historians are (wrongly) wholly ignored (and ar times snobbed)by Academic Historians.This article emphasizes that Amateur Historians actually contribute so much to history.

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000308.php

 

 

In fact the article goes as far as to state that Amatuer Historians contribute far more to specific history topics than academic historians do particularly on obscure or ignored aspects of history such as "history of law in 1800s" and the historical facts behind "Jack the Ripper".Or for example, how Chiefs could write "History behind French Food" or how Ex Airforce Pilots write "History of Fighter Planes" ETC.

 

 

What do you think?I think these articles truly empahsize essential parts of history generally ignored in Universities such as the contribution of amatuer.

Edited July 4, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[caldrail]

You do seem to have a fascination for alternative interpretation! that's fine as far it goes, but realise that learned men often place a high value on their accrued expertise for obvious reasons. Have you ever watched Adrian Goldsworthy in a television interview? When he finishes his point, he raises his chin, and gives the most incredible "Doubt me if you dare" glance down his nose. Fantastic stuff.

 

Historical interpretation can be seen as something of a bell curve, with traditional accepted versions being the central bulge. That doesn't mean the interpretation is right, but if you choose to flout convention, you need be sure you're on solid ground, which actually tends to lead people back toward the centre because the better interpretations are based on historical and archaeological evidence shared by amateur and expert alike.

 

Where the expert sometimes has an advantage over the amaeur is access to detailed information restricted from common view.

[Melvadius]

To some extent I