So, how many of us are actual IRL Historians with academic degrees and shit and not mere armchair Historians who got all their information off Wikipedia? I'm currently working on my Masters in 'Histoporn: the Sexualization of History in Popular Culture,' a study in how History has become hyper sexualized on Television, Movies and print, and what that means for the telling of History and the Academic Profession.
Perry and the like? An interesting topic. What is your take on it? I've seen two schools of thought on that topic, either they did Japan a great deal of good and made it into the power it is today, or they created the anti-western mentality which eventually led to WWII.
I got a 4 year in history.
However, I don't think that really means much. The best historians will have degrees, but there were plenty of dipshits in my upper level seminar classes that were basically braindead.
Most historians do in fact use armchairs.
To be honest I could've done a history major, and planned to, but it's completely dominated by party-politics in my nation. And from the folks I've talked to, it seems they're actually receiving more politics than education because the kind of misconceptions and knowledge-gaps they're presenting take the discussion level to /pol/ or Tumblr tier.
tl;dr too much politics, too little history
Its terrible my friend . I live in an certain arab country and you see my students are from the math section so history and geography is considered as a secondary subject that they wont even need in their final year so all what they do in class is eating, playing with their phones and making fun of me .
Oh no, people will know who you are on a Mongolian recipe sharing forum! The horror!
Not to mention he didn't even publish it yet, so unless you're putting a calendar reminder, you'll have forgotten about it in a few months' time.
Come to America. You'll become the cool history teacher that everyone loves. Unless they're boring, no one hates on the history teacher.
I plan to do my PhD afterwards, and then become a fulltime Lecturer. And given my grandparents have bankrolled me the entire time (I've never needed a Student Loan and am debt-free) I don't have to worry about the money.
Actually I was thinking of doing my PhD on 'History and the Media Age: How the Internet has revolutionized History', talking about how the Internet has made a more complete record of past events then at any point in History before, focusing on 9/11 and the Iraq War and coverage of both online and asking how a Historian should use the Internet as a Historic resource.
You don't have to worry, he's obviously as bourgeois as fuck and will both scab on his colleagues and ruin his graduate student's research programmes.
Fewer than half a percentage of PhD candidates are working class. And no I don't mean "blue collar."
>I'm currently working on my Masters in 'Histoporn: the Sexualization of History in Popular Culture,' a study in how History has become hyper sexualized on Television, Movies and print, and what that means for the telling of History and the Academic Profession.
That is the dumbest thing I've heard all year.
>Have you reached the Postmodern threshold yet?
Undergrad is alright. It hasnt gotten difficult at all yet and the first year doesnt count at British Universities so ive pretty much done fuck all desu. I stumbled upon Postmodernism in the third week of the first year and avoided it since. im getting a bunch of the books to read over christmas though.
I'm a physics grad student
While I enjoy history a great deal it never really gave me a good rush
I considered for a time being a classics major with a focus in Latin texts but decided against it
Have you seen Spartacus, Rome, The Tudors, Reign or any History TV show in recent years? They're all saturated in sex and violence beyond what would was actually done, and I want to know why. Maybe it's a bad topic, but it's something new and not a stale rehash like so many other things.
I hate those fuckers so much. They almost completely ruined History for me.
I'm a second-year English Literature student who's contemplating doing a Master's in History.
Am l deluding myself in thinking a feat like that is possible without actually having studied History?
I'm not sure what field I want to go in to. I'm planning to study archaeology, ancient history, Greek, and Latin, but I also really like philosophy (Classical and enlightenment).
I'd really like to focus on Rome, Byzantium, and antiquity in general, but I also like medieval and Napoleonic history. I'm really interested in neoplatonic philosophy, but unless I do a philosophy degree, I probably won't encounter much of it.
>Have you seen Spartacus, Rome, The Tudors, Reign or any History TV show in recent years?
I don't typically watch trashy TV shows.
I don't think they're worth writing about either.
Sensationalism is nothing new.
Higher education in history is mostly about learning how to go through archives and write history rather than rote memorization of facts. That's not to say that there's no dates and names, it's just that they're not that big a part of academic work. If you're confident in your abilities as a writer, you should be able to do fine.
>I hate those fuckers so much. They almost completely ruined History for me.
You have to know them to overcome them.
Next try EP Thompson versus Perry Anderson (Stalking horse for Althusser).
>Depends, you might struggle with the theoretical stuff if historical theory is anywhere near as horrible as archaeological theory
Neh, if you know how to read you can do historiographical theory. The problem is most people haven't learnt hermeneutics.
>I'm a second-year English Literature student who's contemplating doing a Master's in History.
I know plenty of Lit Majors doing history. The two disciplines are a lot closer than you think.
You'd find that being knoweldgeable in standard details & figures & events history doesn't actually help in Masterals
>t. I am that guy.
I'm a fourth year History student. Planning to go to grad school for a Master's in Library Science.
One question for people who are into history over archaeology: how do you find having no 'practical' aspect to the work? Obviously history's really interesting but compared to archaeology it's a bit dry
I dropped out of college because I found the approach they take to history extremely boring.
I'm not interested in the diet of peasants during the Ancient Regime, I'm not interested in some heretical beliefs of a irrelevant cheesemaker, and I'm definitely not interested in the intersectionality of Marxist feminism during the Sandinista revolution.
Unfortunately, that's all academic historians are interested nowadays, so that was not my place. I hope /his/ doesn't follow that path either, I guess most people do not come here for that bullshit either.
I have an associates from community college but I don't have the grades or money to move forward at the moment
I intend to focus upon Anatolia despite having virtually 0 connections to it personally.
>Have you seen Spartacus, Rome, The Tudors, Reign or any History TV show in recent years? They're all saturated in sex and violence beyond what would was actually done, and I want to know why.
It's because sex sells. The average viewer has no interest in History shows unless they're filled with sex and violence.
Let me preface this by saying l live in a former third-world shithole (formerly third-world, still a shithole) and most of our history consists of stealing that of our neighbors or fabricating dhit out of thin air.
So if l were interested in something like the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, just how specific would my thesis have to be? What about research, how would source-hunting and listing said sources go? I wouldn't have to go look for primary sources in the French National Archives, right?
Which is a shame, as History is really interesting if you actually look beyond the basics. Those shows could be really good without a needless dollop of sex and violence. Maybe that says more about people today than History.
Just learning about wars and great men is honestly a very superficial approach to history. The diet of peasants during the Ancien Regime can be pretty important if you're asking about how famine would have driven them to revolt, for example.
What time period of Anatolia? I'm assuming you're in the states? If you're anywhere near Chicago, the Oriental Institute is amazing, they have free lectures once in a while.
The Japanese and Germans have made huge strides in Anatolian history and archaeology despite not having connections to it personally. Interested people will be interested. For ANE stuff, the importance of modern languages is:
German > English > Turkish > Japanese > etc.
Son, if you are studying a subject for a couple of months. And you head over to the archive. And suddenly you find this rare gift of a source that tells you everything you need to know.
That feeling is fucking magical
History student dropout senpai
always prefered anecdotal history to deep study
This board is dope
If you're interested in the French Revolution, I'd suggest you read 'Citizens' by Simon Schama. He's the reason I decided to become a Historian in the first place. Or if you can find a copy, Georges Lefebvre's history of the French Revolution. WHen you read them , check through the cited sources and bibliographies, that should give you an idea of where sources can be found. It should also help to stimulate a question or topic in your mind to do your Thesis on.
I got my bachelor's in history, but had the presence of mind to know that a master's or phd is a terrible investment. Went to law school instead, which was the best decision of my life. I still love history, but there is no money in it.
Got through undergrad with a degree in the subject, then realized there was no money in studying history academically and became a NEET. Plus I suck at languages, and the job market's bad enough when you *are* multilingual.
>History student dropout senpai
Same. I went for culinary and Japanese. I don't regret it
>defending your poor choice of vocation this haughtily
I mean, I guess you have to cling to something at this point.
Medieval Greeks and Rum. I just realized I should try Rum some time I'm only 22 and it'd feel funny to read about Rum while drinking Rum.
I'm in rural TN so Chicago is a ways away, but I'll remember that when I can hold a job. Kinda surprised to hear the Japanese are into it that much.
How's that going for ya? What are you working on?
I assume this would be the case in other non-Anglo universities offering English Lit courses, but l've got a lot of classes that actually deal with the history and culture of Britain and America, not to mention the constant discussions about historical background in the classes that do cover literature.
I lost my train of thought here, l types that out in order to ask you something but then l forgot. Uh...how are you finding it? Is it difficult, not having a history degree to lean on?
That shouldn't be a problem. I find myself slacking off on the things l need to do for my actual classes and reading history instead.
Any biography recommendations, by the way? Preferably something dealing with European or American historical figures from the 18th century onwards.
About Lefebvre, is his book on Napoleon worth reading, or is it outdated? I've read the books by Vincent Cronin and Andrew Roberts, but l wouldn't mind some more books on the man.
I would say both. Although they were still pretty anti western before that. Japan had a smaller version of the Taipeng rebellion and after killing all the Christian rebels banned Christianity. It left a bad taste in their mouth. Also, Russians.
Other stuff happened, during the meiji restoration while they were trying to establish themselves as a colonial power,a European boat unloading a shit pile of Cholera victims at a Japanese port after the imperial government told them absolutely fucking not. Despite being the first asian power to throw off their unequal treaties, they got treated like shit by most western powers.
At the end of the day, and I'm saying this as an American so take it as you will, Perry was good for Japan. The US was a hell of a lot nicer than a lot of European powers, and I can't even imagine what would have happened had the Russians really forced themselves on Japan. The Japanese also had the advantage of a large and well educated aristocracy in the form of the samurai. And the gimp shogun who took power right after Perry left who asked all the daimyo for help.
I hope they don't award you the degree just for that. I don't want to see even a ghost of a chance of such a shitty phrase popping up in academic circles; it sounds like a History Channel show.
>got my masters in Latin American History
>hired fulltime as a US History professor
>hate it because US History is easy tier and too many retards and marxists
poly sci majors shitting up my class
>the old fuck that teaches 6 World Civ
classes won't let me have at least one
>Can't find another fulltime gig, only adjunct bullshit
Just kill me now.
The only people who go to 4chan interviews are the attention whores who had nothing to do with the site besides shitposting and derailing and go there just to give a retarded version of the events to make everyone mad, knowing no one can do anything about it
My BA is in International Relations and Politics, and my MA is in Strategic Studies. Neither is strictly history I suppose, but it was the huge bulk of what was studied, and I wrote my Master's thesis on Byzantium.
>tfw jobless but don't care, learned cool and fun things
you're not for real
fuck back to your containment thread
The reality is that someone who pursues the study of a specific subject as a full-time academic career will probably have a more in depth knowledge about the subject than someone who reads history as a hobby. It's not that somehow the fact that they have a degree makes them "better", it's simply that they dedicate more time to study and research into the subject. If it were any topic outside the humanities, this really wouldn't even be questioned.
Only got a bachelor's in history. Capstone paper was about shifts in a private school's culture and permissiveness in the 1960s. Turns out, a lot of the hippydom in the student body wouldn't have been possible if the school's administration hadn't actively pursued a relaxation of the school's rules and tried recruiting new students from beyond Old Money circles.
Nowadays I just spend my time teaching and playing Paradox games.
They go over basic historiographical theory and practice as an undergraduate. Most history programs require their undergrands to write at least one research thesis to graduate. It's just that at graduate levels and above you start dedicating serious time just to historiography.
I just like history as a hobby
>people spent money to study history in uni/college
Fuck I hope /his/ doesn't become /pol/. That shit's seeping damn well everywhere on 4chan, and you can only butt into a thread so many times with a tirade about liberal degeneracy and the importance of racial purity before it gets stale.
lmao think what you want to think you elitist fuckboy, I'll just go ahead and torrent Polybius' Rise of the Roman Empire while you plunge into debt to do the same (but with an extra bit of paper called a diploma for a last page)
Tons of them.
"Great Civilizations of Ancient Africa" by Lester Brooks (which is one of my favorites, an absolute blast!) is sitting right across from me, alongside "Greek Gods and Heroes" by Robert Graves.
Two months ago, I bought 57 books for $46 at a book sale, including many books about ancient civilization, some works of Plato, things about folklore, mythology, etc. I wish I had more, but I'm unemployed right now and low on money. Got two interviews coming this week, hope I get something.
I have no debts. I received a regent scholarship at Davis and several more that I actually have a surplus of cash.
I'm currently working at a Catholic school, and I love it. I have been told by administration that if they stay for another 4 years, they will pay for my masters.
Stay mad, pleb.
That much is true, I've gotten loads of these questions already. Truth is, I'd rather risk being a professor than play it safe and be a grade school teacher, but I'll probably just enlist in the military after graduating from ROTC. (And maybe stay in the reserves long enough until I get my masters).
I have a bachelor's of history. I'm a /pol/ack.
I realized that degrees don't mean much, what you do for it is so specialized or libtarded makebelieve "history" that it doesn't mean you're automatically a history buff because you have a degree. You become a history buff by reading history on your own. A degree just lets you into the academic world so you can see how the history sausage gets made.
Try to get some time in substitute teaching before you go in as the proper thing.
Learning good classroom management techniques is the mostly incredibly important part of becoming a good teacher, from what I've seen. It doesn't matter how strong your grasp of the material is if none of the students are listening to you.
I didn't have time to get a degree in History, but I've had a few upper level classes that reignited my interest in the subject. I imagine if I go on to get my Masters, I'll see if I can double-major history or something. If that's too much work I may just let it be, I'm content being an armchair historian, and I have no interest in teaching history.
Ahh good old academic snobbery ruining yet another intellectual hobby of mine. I dont get my information of off wikipedia I own actual books. Youre not better than me, you likely only know one area of history in great detail and the rest you dont know anymore than I do. You probably also earn less than me because you were stupid enough to make history your profession, kek.
>You probably also earn less than me because you were stupid enough to make history your profession, kek.
This is why the snobbery exists in the first place when you have an attitude like this
I am also an Assyriology PhD student. In what country are you?
>Youre not better than me, you likely only know one area of history in great detail and the rest you dont know anymore than I do. You probably also earn less than me because you were stupid enough to make history your profession, kek.
Why do you feel the need to be a cunt on the internet?
Is it because you know you aren't a very good historian?
Is history the only discipline where this attitude is prevalent? Even with other humanities, you would never see someone claiming to be a Dickens expert just because they read his works once through.
I have history and philosophy bachelors and a JD so I'm a rare A&S major who makes a good living
The history program at my university was pretty damn good
I routinely had to produce 25-30 page papers for certain professors
to this day I love watching historical documentaries on youtube and the like
my "specialties" in history were African history and medieval european history, took four classes in each
>Masters in 'Histoporn: the Sexualization of History in Popular Culture,' a study in how History has become hyper sexualized on Television, Movies and print, and what that means for the telling of History and the Academic Profession.
Sounds like insane drivel, desu
Wikipedia is actually highly valid when contrasted with actual, big name thesauruses.
I'd rather argue with a Wikipedia-warrior than someone who has read an elaborate, yet egregiously biased account of some historical topic. I doubt many discussions on this board will draw upon much more than cursory knowledge anyways.
You're welcome. Check out what the requirements are for substitute teaching in your state! Where I live, substitutes only need an associate's degree in any field-- if that's true where you live, you could do just one more year of college and then try your hand at subbing, if you wanted to dive in at the first opportunity.
>had to write that many 30 page papers
I dont mind writing long pages but i believe the content matters more than the length
I mean why write 20 pages of redundancy when you can write 10 pages of good shit is what im trying tonget at
>actual IRL Historians with academic degrees and shit
If only my country's colleges weren't marxist blobs, maybe I could study History.
No wonder why our educational system is shit, only low tier students want a History degree because it's truly easy to get into university, our teachers are low tier, therefore our students are below average, and so on.
I'll be nice and bite.
You're using the wrong buzzwords. "Feminism" is a sociology buzzword, not a history one. Next time, use a phrase like, "Female perspectives" rather than simply "feminism", and you might actually get the response to your trolling you desire.
Short essays test your ability to concisely deal with a topic, and your ability to talk in depth about what you consider the most important things and prove WHY they are the most important.
Longer essays judge your ability to tie more and more things into a coherent and cogent argument. The longer the essay the more important it is that it flows and generally agrees with itself throughout.
I mean I get that saying the same thing three times might work on a prof but if you didn't fill up a blue book during my medieval history essay exams you are not getting better than a B because you didn't really expound on much
I'm currently working on my undergrad at a Christian university (Harding, if you're curious). It's interesting, to say the least. So far my classes have been fraught with anti-postmodern lectures and general pushes against the demonizing of religion and attempts to secularize history. Which I appreciate. But it also means that I haven't gotten much chance to study other religions, and most philosophical work I've gotten to have has been underwhelming to say the least (there's a GIGANTIC Bible department with about 20 professors, and one, single, lonely, PhD in Philosophy professor who's actually lumped into that department).
That being said, I genuinely do love it despite all the bullshit. Although I am really curious to see how grad school is going to shape up. I still haven't figured out where I am going to go. So far I know I want to go for 19th century European history of ideas. But that's all I got.
what? im the cunt? you started it by insulting me calling me an armchair historian who gets his informationbon wikipedia. You implied my sources are trash and i dont know what im talking about just because i dont have a degree So I say fuck you, at least I have a job that can actually pay the bills. Normally I wouldnt give a shit about someones income because its hard out there but if youre going to waltz in with an air of superiority then imbgonna bite back.
>you started it
I'm not the OP you fucking retard, but you've taken a LOT of offense at being called an armchair historian, which, if history isn't your profession you are.
Whether you have good sources or not, the amount of offense you have taken is a little odd.
>do you get your sources from wikipedia
>n..no, but at least my family don't starve and I earn money!!!
wew lad, you are no better than the OP
Currently working on my masters in history.
I have a thesis titled
Discoveries related to the field of Physical Sciences within Pre-colonial Africa.
I'll admit it is rather challenging given how there is so little to work with evidence wise.
You need to learn how to discipline those stupid kids and get them in line. Can you kick them out of class? Call parents? Tell them your expectations before every class in how they should behave? Give out detentions? If it's an Arab country corporal punishment is a thing, and I know through the grapevine if the parents hear their kids are fucking around in the class (not doing homework, etc) they'll smack 'em one too. Positive reinforcement is a good thing too but with annoying little high school jerks it won't work at all. They may hate you, but they will learn.
I double majored in English/History and got my honours for my undergrad so I've got a solid rock foundation in it. I didn't take it too seriously during school and once I aced the ten or so courses I needed to to get my honours I just did a mediocre job in my classes. Now that I'm older and more mature I think I'll save up so I can bump up my grades, and get higher grades so I can go for my masters and PhD. Being a professor would be real nifty.
Not him, but you're idiocy and ignorance is showing. Watching one documentary or reading one line from wikipedia or on a Stormfront blog is shit-tier history and you deserve to be called out for it.
>You know what you meant
>I'm not the OP you fucking retard
Are you sure you are good at reading sources?
And what phrase would you prefer, amateur or hobbyist? I bet you would be offended by that too, as you seem to value your own 'interest' readings as much as anyones 3+ years of detailed study,
>your opinion on historical subjects has no value whatsoever
Kek, you're probably one of those idiots that think military historians are second-rate when compared to those who study ancient phallus art or Republic era Roman basket-weaving or the ancient tradition of Uyghur circular comasturbation from Xinjiang province or some shit.
So somehow reading a book and having someone give you a certificate of having read that book makes you better than someone who simply reads the book. The internal politics of the study of history is the reason why I'm not a history major anymore. The abandonment of historical accuracy in favor of politically correct historical revisionism and the filtering of historical analysis for the purpose of reconciling it with the narrative aim of the academic elite is some of the biggest cancer in academia right now.
At least in biology, there is true and there is false. There is not your "truth" and my "truth", there is only truth.
Are you working with another student who's doing hers on 'HBO's America: Band of Brothers, the Pacific and Television History'?
Do you two help to pioneer writing on television and history?
Did you bang yet?
Majoring in history has taught me this.
Your degree is essentially just a piece of paper…and you guys already know this…no big shocker here
The truth is that in college history classes you read a shit ton of books and then you talk about it with your professor.
Just read a shit ton of books about the stuff you like and watch videos/documentaries. Getting a doctorate is basically worthless because you aren't going to get a college teaching position.
Major in history. Get your teaching job to pay the bills. Then in the free time in your summers go to a local community college and offer to teach a class or try and create one. Don't waste your time with a PhD just read books all the fucking time.
I'm engaged to a military historian who is getting his Master in WWI. I don't value one history topic or another.
So I stopped reading right there, I bet you went off on some dumbass rant that barely hides your hurt feelings.
Fucking this, man. You don't need a degree to have a comprehensive mind. As long as you know what you're talking about and don't just believe every thing you read/see on daytime TV and the news, I'd say you're good to go.
you wat m8 the first book we covered in history 101 was a historiography text.
Second year undergrand just declared my major and am currently deciding on whether I want to double major in Russian or get my teacher licenscure. Also currently working on a paper on soviet propaganda in the thirties and forties.
>Being a professor would be real nifty.
It won't be. It is one of the most oversupplied jobs. You need 2 books to get hired these days. And then write one every 3 years.
It takes 5 years to write a monograph btw.
I'm a four-year history graduate, wrote a undergrad "thesis" (I know I'm not quite professional historian tier, but I spent a lot of time on it) on the land grab in Africa setting up WWI. Was planning on grad school but decided to get out of the ivory tower and work for a while (got a pretty decent job, no STEM required). I think history is really interesting and we definitely need sharp people to keep tabs on that shit because otherwise the ignorant, the partisan, and the lazy will define our past for us. However, as a fairly scientifically minded person, I get discouraged by just how difficult it is to get hard facts about the past. Historians in the future are gonna have it so easy with everything entombed on the internet forever. Lucky fucks.
>So somehow reading a book and having someone give you a certificate of having read that book makes you better than someone who simply reads the book.
This is retarded. As someone who has a history degree to MA level I would never assume that my certificate means I know more than him.
I can fucking guarantee though that he hasn't read as many recent books on my specific areas of interest, especially ones that are definitely not in wide enough circulation (as in only available at the British Library etc).
You and I probably know similar amounts of History outside of my degree focus, but I fucking know you don't know nearly as much as I do about Diocletian's building projects and a bunch of other topics beside.
People wouldn't read a book about electronics and say they were as good as someone who has studied electronics, but in history this seems to be okay.
>However, as a fairly scientifically minded person, I get discouraged by just how difficult it is to get hard facts about the past. Historians in the future are gonna have it so easy with everything entombed on the internet forever. Lucky fucks.
That's what I want to write my PhD on. How much History will change when we have the most complete records of all and can come closest to the ideal of a 'balanced' history.
You lucky git. They really do keep historiography from undergrads in most history programs that I have heard of, including the one I did. Read up on it some on my own and I really wish that shit was in high school, never mind college.
Question to actual academics: I'm considering doing a American History MA in the next couple years, mostly out of personal pleasure since I've found a cheap enough program to splurge on it. However my deepest interests run more ancient, and I'm wondering do schools ever let you cross specialties in teaching? I have no strong desire to become a US history teacher, but if I could occasionally sub for someone teaching Roman History and eventually get these classes for myself, I'd go full blown career in it.
Question prompted by >>42222 who might be fibbing, or if not is possibly dead by now.
I have no history degree.
I am a software developer. In my spare time I work on mods for GS history games.
I've done so since I was 14 when I was joining and flaking a bunch of RTW mod teams. I actually talked with GJ a few times (creator of RTR) if anyone cares.
I guess I'm an armchair historian, most of my history is done through emotionally-driven research, where someone says something I don't like so I dig through primary sources to prove them wrong. And reading overly verbose history arguments on video game forums
You don't know shit about Diocletian's building projects, pussy. I'll have you know I've spent over 9000 hours recreating all of Diocletian's building projects out of clay, pop-sickle sticks, and paper mache. I've engineered and reverse-engineered all of his building projects in AutoCAD, and am a chairman of Architect & Surveyor Society, of the History Of Late Empire department (or ASS HOLE for short). I know everything there is to know about the architecture and engineering capabilities of the Roman Empire.
Debate me, faggit.
>and I want to know why.
Are you stupid? People have always liked shows with sex and violence, the history is just a cheap backdrop to add spice. This doesn't need an entire major dedicated to it.
>recreating all of Diocletian's building
this sounds hard, considering how little we know about how they looked 8^)
good post tho, I chuckled. Have the Decennalia monument base.
One of my faorite moments so far was during my class on East Asia's economic history and the professor assigned a historiography paper. the class was roughly 75% econ majors and 10% poly-sci majors who had no idea what the fuck they were doing. It was like watching chickens with their heads cut off.
>proof of history degree
Used to be everyone who wanted to be considered well-educated had to be able to competently discuss history and humanities. That's the way things should be if you ask me, not a path of complete specialization where the only people who are allowed to be interested in something are the people who devote their entire life to it.
This isn't a professional website, this is 4chan. People can come here and spew shit out of their mouths if they want, they just do so under the understanding that if they out themselves as retards they'll get laughed at. Then they go back to lurking and eventually they post again and actually add something to the discussion.
But by all means protect your secret club, faggot
>posts implying he knows as much about history as someone who actually practices it as his permanent speciality
>implies all people with history degrees can't earn any money
>thinks this isn't a bad viewpoint
Pretty damn specific anon. Most of the big picture stuff on French Rev./Napoleon has been done to death a million times over. The point is to contribute to the body of knowledge, which is usually requires a pretty nuanced point. Kind of like how physics only makes small steps forward now that standard theory is mostly nailed down.
>historiography teacher was shit
>dont remember how to write one
>never even got to see what i did wrong
>apparently got a B, but have no idea how or why because i never saw my paper again
Suicide still an option right?
>There should be a mandatory history test or at least some kind of proof of a history or history related degree before you're allowed to post here.
I wish, a googleproof history test would be amazing.
>tfw you feel the same way
>tfw your books are written by the same academic establishment you hate
How do we escape this bullshit? Is it too much to ask for no bias and no snobbery?
Its actually a hot topic on /g/, are university educated programmers even any better than self tauht programmers. I believe that in vocational and humanities subjects its totally possible to attain mastery by studying it on your own. regardless i dont believe im a master of history i just dont like my knowledge being trashed just because it didnt come from a lecture theatre.
I mean im doing VERY well in all of my classes. But that class i feel like nearly ruined me. It was an awful experience and i will never understand why i only got a B
Like seriously it eats at me man. I feel like its going to bite me in my ass
>I believe that in vocational and humanities subjects its totally possible to attain mastery by studying it on your own.
What's your opinion on the possibility of immanent totalisation and the bearer of the subjectivity; and, are trade union studies an adequate test of the aforementioned?
The fibber here.
It depends on the school. Unless you are tenured and become chair of the department, you have to stick to what the school offers. So if they don't have Ancient Rome, you are fucked. Also, if you are a newbie, you'll have to get whatever leftover shit remains. However, you do get dibs before the adjuncts, and you usually get to set your own hours.
I'm a hobby historian through and through [spoiler]although I do do a law degree so that's kinda like history[/spoiler]. Currently trying to find a copy of the Alexiad to read after exams
>he thinks he knows more about Diocletian than me.
I have so much passion for the Dominate you dont even understand. You think casual history enthusiasts are a pushover but you fail to understand the sheer power of autism.
>I believe that in vocational and humanities subjects its totally possible to attain mastery by studying it on your own.
I'm sorry I couldn't disagree with this any less. You can't attain 'mastery' over History at all, you can gain mastery over a small (really small) section of History with dedicated study if that's pretty much all you do.
You can gain a good level of knowledge through just your own attempts, but if you have your own job that you actually have to put work into there is no way you can have any mastery of history.
I could easily read up to 100 books and journal articles etc for a single essay on the narrowest of topics in my MA, but someone who has read maybe 5 books on the entirety of Imperial Rome will be perfectly happy to tell me I'm wrong on the internet and it's 'academic snobbery' for me to suggest otherwise.
You don't need a degree to understand history or contribute to discussion, but it isn't snobbery for me to know I have more authority on some topics than people who haven't studied those topics.
I got a BA in history and I'm working on a Ph.D right now. My dissertation concerns the similarities and differences in the way antislavery and proslavery advocates portrayed fatherhood in 19th century America. I'm currently working on acquiring sources from a lot of historical societies around the nation--most of them duplicate their microfilm holdings as pdf or have them online digitized, which really makes things easier for me!
>I read 5 books on Imperial Rome
>You read no books on Imperial Rome because your professor made you concentrate on Cambodian basket weaving for five years
Who knows more about Imperial Rome?
I'm concerned that this view is so widespread.
Outside of my degree, the chances are we have similar amounts of knowledge spread around to whatever subjects we each find more interesting, and I have never pretended I know more IN GENERAL about history than you do. I don't.
The difference comes in where I have actual degree specialization. If you think your 'a few hours of reading a day' makes you an equal authority on what I spent years reading many hours a day on I don't really know what to say.
>professor makes you concentrate on something
idk what it's like where you are but here in England I was pretty much allowed to make all my own topics, so long as I ran them past my lecturer first.
Ok I'm not sure if you are trolling me, but I'll say it one last time.
I'm not the OP.
I'm glad you read history books, I think more people should!
And for the record, I read loads of wikipedia. For most things its innaccuracy is overblown. For overviews of events its fine, but nuanced knowledge of historical interpretations of events and some more 'unusual' topics it lacks (which isn't a flaw, it's just not for that).
For example if you wanted a rundown on the Tetrarchic system, go for wikipedia sure, it's honestly fine! If you want to look at patterns in coin minting during the Tetrarchy it just isn't going to get you very far.
Almost free with a BA in History.
You've got shit taste in historical methods m8. Dealing with ideologues and revisionist scum is one thing, but strict adherence to the Great Man theory is pretty limiting.
Please, at least history can be paired up with an education degree and fast-track to a teaching position. We're not foundering like those useless fucks that majored in other "soft sciences". 2/10, I replied.
>googleproof history test
All I can think of are trick questions such as who was the last Roman emperor to visit the British Isles or which was the last white British governor to successfully rebel.
>strict adherence to the Great Man theory is pretty limiting.
Not him but I think it's safe to say a lot of current courses have gone too far in the opposite direction purely out of reaction.
I'd fail the fuck out of this.
Guess that means I should read more.
I was going to do Introduction to Slavic History in uni. Other than that, there's a few history-related subjects I'll be doing.
History of international relations, other international relations subjects covering asia and africa, history of economic thinking, and I'm learning a fair share of history in my Persian class. I am also learning a lot of history in my Introduction to Slavic Literature class, since we cover 5 countries in a semester.
But well, this is my first year and I have no degree. What I can say is - I am getting a widespread education that makes me qualified to debate history, albeit I won't have any specific knowledge.
Also, I had no mistakes in my year 12 history exam, hehe. But I couldn't finish it because I was hungry. Missed 75% of the big-ass exercise that was worth 25% of the score.
>One question for people who are into history over archaeology: how do you find having no 'practical' aspect to the work?
What do you mean by this? As in it has to practical use? Or that you won't be working with your hands?
The answers are
Manuel II Palaiologos, Byzantine emperor who visited what is now a south London suburb in 1400 to have a chat with Henry VIII about the Turkish problem. Trick question because the Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire was technically the same thing it just morphed culture and administration over time to an unrecognizeable medieval Greek nation.
Second answer would be Ian Smith. When Rhodesia declared independence in 1965 it was not with British approval. In fact the colonial office straight up forbade it because they feared a communist takeover. Britain considered sending troops but decided to just sanction them instead because you know they had no more money to fight colonial wars. It is why Rhodesia failed, Britian ensured they were an international pariah from day one as revenge for their "rebellion"
History degree here. Did my thesis on the social definition of chivalry according to medieval fiction and nonfiction sources. Did a lot of research into witchcraft in England as well (if you're interested in crazy people look up Montague Summers, one of my favorites).
History basic protip: everyone should read primary sources, they're informative and sometimes hilarious. They're easily found in source books that compile primary sources into a certain topic or time period.
>So, how many of us are actual IRL Historians with academic degrees and shit and not mere armchair Historians
No, I picked a degree that will actually see me employed.
Though I did fill my electives and humanities with courses based on greek and roman history and culture.
>Roman Empire was technically the same thing
Yes, the Byzantine Empire never referred to itself as such. It always referred to itself as 'Imperium Romanum' right to the very end. The term 'Byzantine' is actually quite a modern invention.
>The "you need a degree or some other such formal qualification" meme
I can tear down a vehicle's motor and transmission, fix it up, and put it all back together in a day's work.
I can adjust a motor's timing by sight and sound to within a great deal of accuracy compared to the measured optimal.
I can drive your car for 10 minutes and tell you with confidence the quality of your gaskets, cylinders, exhaust, and suspension, what is likely to fail, and what may already be broken (REPLACE YOUR FUCKING SUSPENSION BUSHINGS EVERY 5 YEARS FAGGOTS)
I've never gone to school for it,
I've never had a job as a wrench monkey,
I probably will never be employed in vehicle repair.
My father is much the same, and as you can guess I learned it all from him (or at least, the desire for DIY and some knowledge of fixing cars)
He has a bachelors in aeronautics and worked for NASA for almost fifteen years, and he currently teaches people how to use, maintain, and fix medical scanners (PET, Nuke, and CT/MRI).
He's probably more versed in history today than I will ever be.
Sometimes a person's hobby might be where their best applied skill and knowledge lies.
And in short, go fuck yourself.
I designed a gearbox using CAD and had it CNC milled. Never spent a day in school learning about anything to do with CAD, CNC manufacture or even how gears work. I just read books on involute gears and gear trains and practiced CAD until I got good at it. Other things Ive created include ducted fans with NACA airfoils and pic related. Ive never had a problem constructing a mechanical part justbecause I dont have a degree in engineering.
Unfortunately yes. I was doing quite good (A-A+'s, one B) at a top-25 school, but I am no true historian in that I hate/dislike individual research and writing 20+ page assignments.
I suck at Math, though, so I really don't have other options. I don't network either, so I am screwed.