|
In Reply to: Chancellor is way over his professional boundaries on this one posted by Anovagrrl on August 21, 2005 at 20:22:17:
What is a historian?
In the first place, is a person who looks at the record and interprets it. Besides de obvious (reading, writing) several characteristics should be in place for this to happen. The traditional historian reads books, interviews experts, witnesses, all first sources before going to secondary sources. A historian is constantly evaluating new information, nothing goes unaccounted for or without explanation. The end result is the closest picture that historian is able to put together with all the scraps.
A trained historian who is an expert on a subject is a solid resource about that subject. Nothing is left to be swept under the rug.
This man, Chancellor, sweeps plenty under the rag. How can his version of history be history when he has not examined THE WHOLE record? He is interested in his image and what he has said is the truth, a Family fabricated fable designed to hide the real truth. But the record is there and he refuses to even acknowledge it.
Is he interested in the truth?
