Even constitutional scholars who believe orginalism to be the best interpretative method also understand the difference between what historians do and what lawyers do.You are thinking like a lawyer, not a historian
There isn’t any difference.
He's toeing the Originalist line with that one.
Maybe the difference is a "nothingburger."
.
I have seen a quote, something like, “if the history you read only fills you with pride, you aren’t reading the right history.”
History should fill you with pride at times, and make you ashamed at other times.
I think if you read history to feel pride or shame, you are reading for the wrong reasons. It's why I push back on the white washers of the past and the 1619'ers of the present.
Even constitutional scholars who believe orginalism to be the best interpretative method also understand the difference between what historians do and what lawyers do.You are thinking like a lawyer, not a historian
There isn’t any difference.
He's toeing the Originalist line with that one.
And yet judges are expected to act as historians.
I have seen a quote, something like, “if the history you read only fills you with pride, you aren’t reading the right history.”
History should fill you with pride at times, and make you ashamed at other times.
I think if you read history to feel pride or shame, you are reading for the wrong reasons. It's why I push back on the white washers of the past and the 1619'ers of the present.
I'll be honest: I'm having a hard time even understanding the point of the argument this thread is devolving into. To your statement, I read history to learn history. I don't discount the white washers or the deconstructionists as entirely worthless, because I think history needs a context, and learning about others' contexts can still be informative. But I certainly don't read history to feel any particular way, other than informed.
I think if you read history to feel pride or shame, you are reading for the wrong reasons. It’s why I push back on the white washers of the past and the 1619’ers of the present.
I agree with you, one should feel a wide range of emotions because humanity has experienced events that run the gambit from using zyklon-B on people to walking on the moon. And that was just the 20th century.
We should not read to simply confirm biases.
I think the point is that some people use history to make people feel a certain way so that they can influence current political ends. Re-read 1984 with a group of people you like.I have seen a quote, something like, “if the history you read only fills you with pride, you aren’t reading the right history.”
History should fill you with pride at times, and make you ashamed at other times.
I think if you read history to feel pride or shame, you are reading for the wrong reasons. It's why I push back on the white washers of the past and the 1619'ers of the present.
I'll be honest: I'm having a hard time even understanding the point of the argument this thread is devolving into. To your statement, I read history to learn history. I don't discount the white washers or the deconstructionists as entirely worthless, because I think history needs a context, and learning about others' contexts can still be informative. But I certainly don't read history to feel any particular way, other than informed.
I think the point is that some people use history to make people feel a certain way so that they can influence current political ends. Re-read 1984 with a group of people you like.I have seen a quote, something like, “if the history you read only fills you with pride, you aren’t reading the right history.”
History should fill you with pride at times, and make you ashamed at other times.
I think if you read history to feel pride or shame, you are reading for the wrong reasons. It's why I push back on the white washers of the past and the 1619'ers of the present.
I'll be honest: I'm having a hard time even understanding the point of the argument this thread is devolving into. To your statement, I read history to learn history. I don't discount the white washers or the deconstructionists as entirely worthless, because I think history needs a context, and learning about others' contexts can still be informative. But I certainly don't read history to feel any particular way, other than informed.
Is it not already on the list?
Although if we read it we have to read Brave New World with it and have a compare/contrast session.
So historians don’t consider relevance and cause and effect when they study the significance of historical events?
Even constitutional scholars who believe orginalism to be the best interpretative method also understand the difference between what historians do and what lawyers do.
The study of con law is the study of history.
Of course there is a difference between what lawyers and historians do. I never said otherwise.
I still haven seen a cogent explanation of why Jefferson having sex with a slave is a material circumstance to understanding the monumental impact of the Declaration of Independence.