Is It a Line or a Blur?: Controversy and the Art of History in Blog Posts

In musing upon how much to include in a blog post, I recently read an article from Mantra about what to and what not to include in conversations and on blogs. While most of the advice is helpful, I also remember reading from Dan Cohen’s book, Digital History, about how Public Historians are not into controversies that traditional historians are. I agree fully with Dan Cohen. I like presenting the information, and I’m not normally into making things rock, splash, or otherwise changing things unless they need changing. Half the time, I do not think that it is my call about whether things need changing because I am a student.

I have to admit, though, that whenever I told a professor at the AHA meeting that I was a student, they never treated me badly. Most of them actually wanted my opinions on things until I admitted that I probably knew a lot less about a given subject than they did. There was a particular Chinese historian who was simply fabulous who actually asked me why I had not gone directly into a doctoral program. When I told her my course of career and study, she commended my abilities to see the economy for the way it is and for attempting employ-ability in keeping my options as open as I could. apparently she is a retired teacher, and I would love to talk with her more.

Since starting graduate school, I have never felt so small and simultaneously had people who actually took my opinions seriously before. I am a serious person by nature, but that is due to the opposition that I normally face from literally every side for years. Gives a person strong muscles in the tenacity department. That said, I do not like being a controversial person but it seems the only way for distinction here. That is not a good enough reason for me to become that way. I like the ways of the nostalgia associated with gentility. I do not hurt others, and wish the same in kind. Peace is my goal, but I seek not for riches and honors of men but simply being good with God. Talking about religion openly on a blog seems something that is expressly controversial. Politics? Not so much into it, but I do not want representatives that treat people badly and I am sick with the inter-laced corruption divesting the people of any rights while other groups add to the band wagon. Conspiracy theorists argue such things for years as:

Icecream Shop Picture of Media Conglomerates

Ice Cream Shop Picture of Media Conglomerates

Icecream Parlor Picture

Rising Journalism Mediocrity Swamp










I will not take a stand on either issue here. But I do know I want to learn more,  gaining my own opinions on things, and dig down to the truthful heart of a matter. There are biases ranging everywhere driven by frequently septic purposes. I wish to remove the nasty, crude-oil layer of filtration and find out what really is happening. Maybe I am more like traditional historians than I think. That said, I want to facilitate and allow the people to crunch their own numbers and to do their own history. I see history as being an “everyman’s game” and not held by an elite class of people educated for the one purpose of educating more people in their way. I want history to matter to an individual specifically. That is the point of teaching it. Making a difference in someone’s life paradigms is what it is all about. Here’s to controversial soap box posts.

The GenealogyDr–More genealogical posts coming up.


Feel free to comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s