(08-19-2013, 06:49 AM)Softy Wrote: I never said I study the Bible,,,
never said I don't either,,,
the oldest sell is leaders calling themselves gods,,,
starting with Pharaohs and going up to the
more modern times,,,
so the Romans did this too,,,
yep,,,did you know you can't prove Nero,,,
history is very vague,,,in reality,,,however,,,
there is no shortage of those rewriting it,,,
twisted history buffs...
my apologies ..... his story or history as most know it is based on the venue of the day
In 1921 in the house of the lords [what we now call Canadian parliament]
Whether the study or the writing of history can be regarded as an exact science in the literal sense of the word may be a subject of reasonable doubt, but it can hardly be disputed that there is an increasing tendency to treat both in a scientific spirit, just as there is similar inclination to treat the study of science, historically. This is undeniably a modern development. A century ago, history, treated as a science, was unknown, on this continent at least. What passed under that name was a mere collection of fables, of heroic and sentimental legends, of unauthenticated traditions, or records.
[CRUIKSHANK] PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ■
Facts, by themselves, are, of course, not history. Historical materials or documents, standing alone, are not history. They must be organized, elaborated, and combined. This must be done with the proper spirit and in a judicial manner.
A story has been told of a naval officer who beguiled the tedium of a long voyage by working out problems in navigation with the master of a merchant ship. A dispute arose between them on one occasion, and the officer, exhibiting gleefully the results of his calculation, remarked: "Figures won't lie." The other, looking it over critically, discovered an error, and, pointing it out, retorted: "Yes, figures won't lie if you work them right, but you must work them right." The same rule applies exactly to historical materials and facts. They won't lie if you work them right. But this must be done. Otherwise, "a little dispro- portion in the emphasis, a little exaggeration of colour, a little more or a little less limelight on this or that portion of the group, and the result will not be the truth, although each individual fact may be as indisputable as the multiplication table itself.
Without a knowledge of psychology, how can history be properly understood or written? How can the facts be justly appreciated? How can the characters of the chief "actors" be fairly estimated? The motive forces of human history must be found in the moral constitution of humanity yes? How great is the difficulty of forming an equitable judgment
of the actions of public men when private emotions as well as reasons of state are found to influence them, and their actions may appear to result as much from private inclination as from national policy yes?
"In life, as we actually experience it," says a great writer, "motives slide one into the other, and the most careful analysis will fail adequately to sift them." And In another passage, "There are practices in the game of politics which the historian, in the name of morality, is bound to condemn, which nevertheless in this false and confused world, statesmen to the end of time will continue to repeat. "
Freeman, it is hardly necessary to recall, invented the catch phrase that "present history is past politics," which had a great vogue, but only states a partial truth. Buckle asserted that genuine historical evolution consists in Intellectual progress. Most modern economists concur In the view that the dominating forces in historical development are economic. Many churchmen believe that the chief factor in history is religion.