Party time

History Carnival 3 is up over at Detrimental Postulations. Enjoy.

An age old question

Dr. C asks a question as old as the study of history, "Can we indeed write history as it actually was?" The question is not a simple one. I have friends and teachers who would give a straightforward no as the answer. While I don't entirely disagree with them, I think that the answer really depends on where you put the empahsis in the question. It can be asked two ways: "Can we indeed write history as it actually was?" or "Can we indeed write history as it actually was?" To reformulate slightly, the two questions are: "Is it possible to write history as it actually was?" and "Do we, given the sources of information available to us, have the ability to write the history of X as it actually was?" The answer to the second question, with regard to Ancient Israel (the context of Dr. C's post), is clearly no. We have so little information, outside of the Bible, that it really is impossible for us to do more than make intelligent guesses about actual events. The first question is much more interesting, and much more complicated. I suppose that ultimately, given the subjectivity of all documentary evidence, and the silence of most material evidence, that the answer is also no. But I'm also certain that depending on the nature and quantity of the evidence available, sometimes we can come pretty damn close. I think it's silly to say, as some people do, that just because our knowledge can't ever be perfect that we don't know anything. We can and do know some things, and that is not insignificant.

Take this however you like

This quiz, I like. (via Dan Drezner)

You scored as Curt Schilling. You are Curt Schilling! You are a trooper. You push yourself to the limit, regardless of any setbacks. You are also not afraid to express your opinions on a variety of topics. Very family-oriented. You're the man!! Curt Schilling 76% Johnny Damon 63% Kevin Millar 63% Manny Ramirez 53% Theo Epstein 50% David Ortiz 43% Jason Varitek 40% Mark Bellhorn 30% Which Red Sox Player Are You? created with QuizFarm.com

One more indication that Ikea is, in fact, the Devil

This story says it all. (Via Jonah Goldberg)

Teaching History II

I am taking an Introduction to Modern European History class, as a requirement for the history component of my major. I was going to take it last year, but dislike the prof enough to drop the course. In any case, I very much like my professor this semester. Her area of expertise is Vichy France, leading her to have a very dry sense of humor and a massive amount of contempt for the French. Today she was lecturing on the conditions in Europe in the beginning of the 19th century leading up to the revolutions of 1848. She began with an overview of the creation of the middle class, which she rushed through, ending with this apology, "I'm sorry, but I can't talk about this anymore, though there is more to say. I just find it terribly boring. Let's hurry up and get to World War One already." Leaving aside her subjective assessment (which I tend to agree with, at least as far as the rise of the middle class goes), I'm a but ambivalent about her approach here. In a huge survey course like this it is impossible to cover everything in depth. But where should the emphasis lie? She skimmed over one of the most important developments in European history because it bores her. That seems problematic to me. On the other hand, class is better when the professor enjoys what she is teaching. Students get more out of it. And my interests are often in line with hers. In the end the decision is hers, of course. I'm glad she was honest about why she made it, as opposed to downplaying the importance of social history, or ignoring it altogether.

When it rains, it pours

The Patriots just won themselves another Super Bowl. It's odd how it doesn't get old. I've had my teams win 3 championships in the span of about a year and every time, I get the same little rush. Nothing compares to the Red Sox, of course, but these Patriots' Super Bowl wins.... Here's the thing. You commit to a team, a group of guys. You follow them, as they win, lose and struggle over the course of a season or a few seasons or a lifetime. You get emotionally involved with their success, even though it's completely irrelevant to your real life. Then they win, and you go nuts. It's a funny thing, they way I get caught up in sports. I do enjoy watching them, I like athletic competition, but following a team doesn't have a whole lot to do with that. I know a girl who doesn't know, or care, anything about baseball (though she pretends that she does), but she cried when the Sox lost game 7 of the ALCS in 2003. And it was sincere. The level of emotion that I commit to my sports teams is vastly out of proportion to their actual importance. In any case, there are two real points I want to make here. The first is: TOTAL PATRIOTS DOMINATION!!! And the second is that pitchers and catchers report in 10 days. Who can complain?

I've always enjoyed Josh Harrison's blog Chakira, so I've been disappointed by his recent lack of posting. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he will now be YU's representative on the new bloc CampusJ. It is an interesting idea. They have bloggers representing five different university campuses in New York, New York, New York, New York and Jerusalem. There are still no posts from Jerusalem, making New York the only city represented on a blog purporting to be "Jewish Collegiate News." Despite the blog's rather narrow focus, I think that it promises to be interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with it.

(hat tip to Tzemach Atlas)