Not detached from reality and certainly not erroneous. Credibility and "historical empathy" are legit factors in the study of history. Understanding historical empathy and motives Historical Thinking Skills | AHA In short, to be able to engage in historical analysis and interpretation, you should be able to identify the author or source of a piece of evidence and assess its credibility.
Let's take a step back and look at what's happening here. The people outraged over this and demanding the boycott aren't angry because they're being forced by Target to buy Pride stuff or transgender products. They're not angry because Target dropped products that they like in favor of Pride or transgender products. They're not angry because Target put out a poster that said "no conservatives allowed." They're angry because Target is marketing to the LGBTQ community and treating them like a legitimate customer base. What else is driving this other than bigotry? We have a group of people who believe that society, including big corporations, should ostracize the LGBTQ community, particularly transgender people, because it is "wrong" to normalize them existing. The fact that Target is not only accepting them but also marketing to them has "conservatives" up in arms. Certainly, right-wingers have a right to boycott (despite what the Republican clowns on the Eighth Circuit said when the shoe was on the other foot), but we also have a right to point out why they're doing it.
You're moving the goalposts. And my undergrad degree is in History. I stated before, if Joe and the history of Donkey football are important, then the best person to tell the story would be Joe and those close to Joe. If Joe is a poor writer, that doesn't mean he can't be a good story teller. Yes, if Joe and the Donkeys are your only source for football history, you'll be missing 99.99% of the story. But who ever said Joe should be the only source? Not me. This is you bringing this up and moving the goalposts. It's why I also asked who would be the better football history teacher? The best teacher with no primary sources? Or an average teacher with access to any football player currently living? Again, I'll take the latter. And I agree the outrage from the right stems from the fact Target is marketing to LGBTQ+. The right would be happy if the merchandise stayed on the back of the bus, er I mean store. But upfront in a display? That's a bridge too far, I guess. But it's also a sign of progress for those who support the LGBTQ+ community. And those who push back against progress often find themselves in the wrong side of history.
My argument is that I would not invite controversy. Your argument is that it is not controversial. Pride, on toddler's clothing, is the same as the celebrations you listed. The events of the past several days proves your argument wrong. It is controversial whether you deem it so or not. Now you can argue that corporations have an obligation to lead on morality. That's a frightening thought to me. Or, the controversy, when it's all played out, will help the corporation's bottom line. Perhaps there is an argument I haven't thought of but pretending they haven't offended a significant portion of their customers is nonsense. The Dodgers recently invited a group that profanely mocks Catholics and Catholicism. That's a bold move considering the number of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the LA area. They got push back and uninvited them. They got pushback for that and reinvited them. They got pushback for that and added a Faith and Family day to their scheduled events. That's total, easily avoided, nonsense to me.
Out of curiosity…did you actually read the essays you posted? I don’t think you did. Try reading it and tell me WTF it has to do with writing about history. Not studying history, but writing about it—which happens to be the subject matter of this micro aggression. Ughhhh.
Yes, I read the works I posted. No, the conversation did not simply pertain to writing about history . . . it was about teaching it. But to address your point, this is from one of the links I shared: The best way to learn about what history is, is to do or write history yourself. You should be able to formulate historical questions, obtain historical data, evaluate the data, contextualize the data, and present your history in a meaningful form. I have to wonder if you read it. BTW, the person you accused of never having read a history book was a history major.
You asked who can be an effective teacher. The answer is anyone can. Nobody is saying a person without personal experience can't be a good teacher. But there is also no teacher that can teach like personal experience. Think about your own profession. Who can teach you what it's like to be a lawyer better on a day to day basis? A professor who barely practiced law, or a lawyer, practicing for 30 years, who hasn't been in a classroom since graduation? Both offer valuable things to learn. But if you want to practice law, the lawyer with decades of experience can probably teach you more in a few weeks than the professor can. Because that practical experience is paramount. Here's another question along the same lines. Who would you rather represent you? The Professor who has barely seen the inside of a courtroom? Or the lawyer with 30 years practical experience? The best teachers combine both "book learning" and practical experience. Those with only one can still be effective teachers, but there are plenty of things a book simply can't teach you.
it is hopeless to try to get you to focus on what the issue is. Nothing in either of the links that you posted has anything to do with writing history. Instead, it has to do with studying history and what to take from it. Your responses are now boring me.
OK, at this point, I’m going to assume you currently reside in Colorado where you are enjoying the local herbs. LOL. The subject matter of this mini discussion, is “what qualifications” does it take to be a historian, and is race, one of those qualifications/relevant. My hypothetical, dealing with football, has nothing to do with teaching, per se. it was about qualifications. Specifically, does playing a musical instrument, impart qualifications on the musician to teach musical history. My premise is that one has nothing to do with the other. Being proficient at a musical instrument provides you no qualifications, …. zip, zero, zilch … to teach history of music or of a musical instrument. I used a football analogy because I thought it would be more on par with the knowledge base of this group. Lol.
Playing a musical instrument would give the teacher insight when teaching music history that the person with no practical knowledge would possess. I'll go back to the lawyer example. What to learn the law, books can teach you. Really want to understand the law, it's history, importance, and what it's like to be a lawyer today, books alone won't cut it. Maybe someone without practical experience can teach you? But odds are, someone who has lived the life would be best. And no I don't live in Colorado and no reason to call me a pot head. Calling me names only tells me you're losing the argument and are desperate.
let’s try one last time. Try to focus. We’re not talking about teaching, we’re talking about the qualifications to be a historian. I certainly hope if you were going to teach someone how to play the piano that you actually know how to play the piano. That is a necessary skill to teach piano. That skill, however, provides no advantage to you at all as a historian. I know sometimes the left doesn’t believe in science, but you’re going to have to trust me on this one. There is no scientific evidence that a piano player learns about Mozart, Bach, and/or Beethoven through osmosis. Piano players aren’t possessed by the ghost of Tchaikovsky when they tickle the ivories. let’s make this simple. If you disagree with this premise, give me an example of a music historian, who is accepted by his peers as an expert in the field of musical history (not musicianship) who has authored a book on musical history. It can’t be an autobiography, because that is not a history book. I.e., I don’t want Paul McCartney’s history of the Beatles book. Ideally, I’d like to see a book from the 21st century which purports to be a history of baroque/classical music from the 1700s, which is written by a musician without outside sources. The writer is going to only use his personal experience with his/her instrument to provide the history of that time. If you can provide such a link or reference, I will donate $25 to the reelect Biden fund on your behalf.
And yet every last historical musicologist I've taken a class from or worked with possessed substantial proficiency on a musical instrument. Really, this is just a foolish take reflective of a very narrow perception of what is involved with the teaching of history.
Meh. I don’t think your personal experiences makes anyone specifically a good or bad historian or teacher. They do shape what you pull out of history though which provides readers and students a diverse set of thoughts on how to think about history.
No. If target displayed huge Jesus signs, crucifixes and Christian themed clothing line all over the store, I’d boycott the hell out of them too. Just be honest, you hate white christians conservatives. Be like Madonna and open your heart.
Not true. Not remotely. Here’s a podcast episode to learn about the sisters. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and Trans Antaganism – Straight White American Jesus A link to Dr. Wilcox’s book Queer Nuns The description The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence make up an unlikely order of nuns. Self-described as “twenty-first century queer nuns,” the Sisters began in 1979 when three bored gay men donned retired Roman Catholic nuns’ habits and went for a stroll through San Francisco’s gay Castro district. The stunned and delighted responses they received prompted these already-seasoned activists to consider whether the habits might have some use in social justice work, and within a year they had constituted the new order. Today, with more than 83 houses on four different continents, the Sisters offer health outreach, support, and, at times, protest on behalf of queer communities. In Queer Nuns, Melissa M. Wilcox offers new insights into the role the Sisters play across queer culture and the religious landscape. The Sisters both spoof nuns and argue quite seriously that they are nuns, adopting an innovative approach the author refers to as serious parody. Like any performance, serious parody can either challenge or reinforce existing power dynamics, and it often accomplishes both simultaneously. The book demonstrates that, through the use of this strategy, the Sisters are able to offer an effective, flexible, and noteworthy approach to community-based activism. Serious parody ultimately has broader applications beyond its use by the Sisters. Wilcox argues that serious parody offers potential uses and challenges in the efforts of activist groups to work within communities that are opposed and oppressed by culturally significant traditions and organizations – as is the case with queer communities and the Roman Catholic Church. This book opens the door to a new world of religion and social activism, one which could be adapted to a range of political movements, individual inclinations, and community settings.
An historian is going to try and get as close to primary sources as possible. While it's impossible to speak to composers like Bach, Hayden, and Handel, any historian writing a book today on 1700s classical music would listen to the pieces themselves. Look for historical She you're missing the point. To learn any subject, you need to be taught. And practical experience is an irreplaceable teacher. Of course an historian writing about 18th century music and composers can't just use personal experience. But give that historian a chance to go back in time and get personal experience with Bach, Handel, et. al., they would jump at the chance. Because they would have personal experience, which again, is invaluable. Not saying you can't be an historian without personal experience. Just personal experience makes one a better historian. As far as Target goes, think of the experience of LGBTQ+ when they see Pride materials not in the back, but prominently displayed. And think about the younger generation who supports LGBTQ+ at higher rates than all other groups. That's why Target did what they did.
here is your logic. “Every historical musicologist I’ve taken a class from or worked with spoke English proficiently.” From that, you are concluding that THEREFORE speaking English provides a distinct advantage to teaching music history. If you think your point is logical, no one here can help you. I have to say, everyone who is participating in this debate keeps using the same argument/language, but doesn’t explain HOW the playing of an instrument specifically provides insight to Mozart or Beethoven.
We can agree that with a Hot Tub Time Machine, you could travel back in time to party with Prokofiev and write a definitive masterpiece on why the Duck had to die.
