| Author |
 Topic  |
|
mattkendall
- FB Fan -
USA
52 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2003 : 02:48:30
|
Anyone else a history buff or remotely interested in history?
I ask, becuase I'm psychotically in love with the topic (well, I should be, seeing that my intended profession after college is "history teacher"). Two favorite topics are Gilded Age-Progressive Era US history (1881ish-1912ish) and post-Colonial Africa (especially Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Tanzania, all since 1950). But I'll take ANY history of any place, anything, any time, whatever.
Anyone with at least a passing interest in history? Maybe someone who hates history but thought something was wierd or cool or whatever?  |
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 03:50:59
|
hah, i infact hate history... although there are some areas that are kinda interesting. like the depresion, and some wars.. i dont konw i usually play tetris on my graphing calculator during history class, sorry
-miked |
 |
|
|
fallus
- FB Fan -
Belgium
94 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 04:57:38
|
I think "History" is something very strange to be interested in. After all, being interested in history means being interested in everything that ever happened. Some things are boring, some things are cool. Don't you think it's weird being interested in stuff just because it happened in the past?
This is not a signature. |
|
|
|
zanni67
= Bio Elf =
643 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 05:45:42
|
I was a business major in college and minored in Economics. I took a course on U.S. Economic History which was fascinating. So I guess you could say I'm interested in that type of history.
Zan
|
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 08:19:13
|
im reading an excellent biography of ben frankling by a fellow named edmund morgan - it's fascinating - and yes, i like history (especially coloniel US up until Jefferson era)
as breathing flows my mind secedes... |
|
|
|
JamesM
= Cult of Ray =
308 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 11:29:30
|
Zanni - Economic History is absolutley fascinating. While economic theory is, erm. I dunno. Fucking boring. I liked learning about John Maynard Keynes and how he came up with the ideals and theories that made up his economic system, but I don't neccessarily like going into details about the actual ideas and theories themselves. Fuck Okun's Law!
-Jimmy M. |
|
|
|
zanni67
= Bio Elf =
643 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 13:41:54
|
Yea for economic history! (how sad am I??) I once did a 24 pg. thesis on the potential of a recession in the 90s, which sadly happened. I'm such a nerd. Economic theory, um, well, yes, it does suck. Still, amazing stuff, it's what rules the world. Ahhhh, good old supply and demand...
My favorite economic theory/term: opportunity cost. Makes perfect sense to me, every opportunity has its 'price'. You can apply that to every aspect of life, imho.
How about the history of the guitar?? Now THERE'S a subject!
|
|
|
|
mereubu
= FB QuizMistress =
USA
2677 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2003 : 14:10:36
|
| I never took any pure history courses (it was always stuff like history of social thought or art history), but I want to. I can take classes for free at the college where my husband and I work and I'm going to take a couple of history courses when I get time. I've been trying to read Howard Zinn's "People's History of America" forever but I always get sidetracked by something else. If you're interested in history of the American West, you can't beat the books of Dee Brown ("Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"). He died last month at the age of 95 and was one hell of a historian. |
|
|
|
JamesM
= Cult of Ray =
308 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2003 : 10:16:28
|
The only problem I have with economic theory is the fucking graphs. Christ almighty were they annoying. Aggregate Expenditure models and GDP calculators galore. Fuck 'em. But Keynesian Economics is fun stuff. I think the longest report I ever did in Economic was only like five pages long. Just a basic overview of classical and Keynesian economics. Also, ever read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, Zanni? I just picked it up a couple of weeks ago, and I haven't quite got around to reading it. But I'm sure it'll be good, despite the fact that some of his theories are insanely outdated (the government shouldn't interfere with economic policy? the economy is self-correcting? huhn?).
The geetar? That subject gets quite interesting right around the birth of the Tele. Yay for Leo Fender. If anyone wants to buy me a late 60's Telecaster, feel free.
-Jimmy M. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2003 : 09:41:59
|
Hi
I'm really into history. Right now the two favourite topics are world war 2 and the American Civil War. I can wholeheartedly recommand James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom for anyone even remotely interesting in the Civil War. The book is just fucking brilliant. It has to be one of the best books I ever read.
Broken Face - Do you know of any good book for the American Revolution. I've looked everywhere and I can't find like the one book that is "it". I tried 'The Glorious Cause' by a guy with a wierd German name, but it was very dull. Now I ordered a book called 'Angel in the whirlwind' I think from Amazon, I hope it is good.
Economic History - I wanna read the Keyens biography, but it is like THREE VOLUMES? who has that kind of time? I studied business eco in college, and I'm OK with economic theory including graphs - the only bits I don't like is the math, although I can do it if I have to. But yeah, economic history is cool.
Anyone knows any good source for a history of china? It all looks really interesting to me, but I can't find any 'beginner's" work.
Omer
|
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6214 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2003 : 11:14:08
|
I'm gonna study History
next year on Erasmus University Rotterdam
''it's not a box, it's a submarine'' |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6214 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2003 : 11:33:38
|
wanna be a history teacher
''it's not a box, it's a submarine'' |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2003 : 12:14:18
|
omer
i've heard the relatively new "founding brothers" is really good. i don't have the author's name in front of me, but its definetely next on my to buy list.
-brian
as breathing flows my mind secedes... |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2003 : 18:39:44
|
I have a H.BA in history. It really rocks as a subject but anyone interested in taking it at a post secondary level don't expect you are heading for super stardom in the work world but on a person level it will be facinating. Find history is nice for seeing/being exposed to various trends which seem to kind of return over the years.
While in school, I focused on Celtic history for a while... really an interesting period (later Celtic) for economic history and the movement towards modenity in Europe. Also did a lot on the second world war which is a very interesting topic.
In the latter two years of school I shifted a lot of focus to French themes primarily the enlightenment to the restoration which I believe is the most interesting era in history. I like the revolution and the shift of pan-european polics and economics in this era. Also have focus on a lot of revolutionary history which is very interesting... the Inter-Stalinist period in Russia is rather interesting...
Anyhow, that's about it if you are interesting in any periods drop me a line. I might be able to help you find reading material because I had a broad area of study. I also did a lot of economic topics at school if that's your thing...
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
|
|
|
johndietzel
= Cult of Ray =
Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
464 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2003 : 00:07:17
|
I just finished "A Short History of the World" by HG Wells. It's cool how transcendent things like logic and common sense can be. It's an enlightening treatment of history--dispassionate, but replete with valuable observations. Check 'er out someday.
----------------------
"Music has sounded better and our hair has been smaller ever since."--St. Francis |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2003 : 09:35:05
|
Broken Face -
well, 'Founding Brothers' seemed to be about several seperate instances. I'm looking for a more general study of the revolutionary war.
|
|
|
|
zanni67
= Bio Elf =
643 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2003 : 15:49:01
|
Jimmy M-
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond here! I have read parts of Wealth of Nations. Amazing writing! I have it too, and it's funny that you mentioned it here because after my posts I was thinking to myself, "What was the name of that book by Adam Smith??" -- remembered half way through the night and then come on and see your post about it! Guess we're on the same economic wavelength, huh??
Omer-
Not sure about the Keynes bio, but you are prolly right it's several volumes I think. I don't have that kind of time either!
Geetar-
Have to mention Les Paul & Mary Ford and what they did for Gibson. I have a Les Paul Custom so I just had to put a plug in for them since Jimmy mentioned Fender! ;) But seriously, teles and strats rule as well. I think I like teles better tho...
Ciao guys,
Zan
|
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2003 : 16:04:04
|
Marx was a great economic theorist... grasped the fact most of Smith's theories would only possible in a slave economy... interestingly enough Smith remains the father of modern economic theory...
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
Edited by - St. Francis on 01/14/2003 16:40:14 |
|
|
|
JamesM
= Cult of Ray =
308 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2003 : 19:14:49
|
Smith was a genius economist, albeit a bit misguided. Still, his theories remain the stepping stones for the economic principles that we use this day. Marx. Well, I dunno. Not exactly a big fan of his theory. Not sure how things would work out in a pure command society. Not that they'd be that much better in a purely capitalistic society that Adams envisioned, I suppose. They both have their merits.
-Jimmy M. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2003 : 04:39:15
|
| I don't think Adam Smith was misguided at all. He didn't get EVERYTHING right, but he got the essence, and the ingenious understanding that there is a market and market forces which organise economies was a real break through |
|
|
|
JamesM
= Cult of Ray =
308 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2003 : 13:39:39
|
You're right, misguided wasn't really the word I should've used in that context. Just incorrect in some regards. But, yeah, I agree, he's definitley one of THE names you should look at when studying economy (along with Marx and Keynes).
-Jimmy M. |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2003 : 16:02:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by JamesM
Smith was a genius economist, albeit a bit misguided. Still, his theories remain the stepping stones for the economic principles that we use this day. Marx. Well, I dunno. Not exactly a big fan of his theory. Not sure how things would work out in a pure command society. Not that they'd be that much better in a purely capitalistic society that Adams envisioned, I suppose. They both have their merits.
-Jimmy M.
Marx doesn't advocate a purly command society... the Russians did and the ghost of Stalin (look into other soviet Leninist/communist theorists) is often congured to make a case against Marx...
Marx advocated the creation of products based on a different profitability matrix, a matrix, which orthodox Smithsonian Capitalism cannot advocate precisly because it breaks with the fundamentalist golden rule: the function of business is to put the least ammount in (various costs) and then get most ammount out (profits). A central and rediculas formula because it is the least sustainable way to do business. The least amount in and the most amount out stumbles into trouble because it is in direct conflict with the finite nature of science(whether it be environmental or social). Smith is great if you are hijacking people (whether from West Africa -when he initially wrote- or paying someone at gun point to produce consumer goods) and want a theory to maximise profits.
Admittedly, some of his theories have a little merit but, there is no moral coding built into his work and this raises a problem.
The Western establishment(primarily American capitalism -which is simluated by all the Western nations... everyone is guilty even...Canadians) has always tried to argue that morality can't be factored into economics which is an obscure notion. In purly Smithsonian terms: robbery is acceptable as a means of perpetuating the economy... so the next time a guy robs you at the bank machine don't call him a criminal but rather a capitalist entraprenuer; after all he is adhering to the golden rule and put the least amount in to get the most amount out... isn't that Smith's notion of economy?
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
Edited by - St. Francis on 01/14/2003 16:33:11 |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2003 : 16:16:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Omer
I don't think Adam Smith was misguided at all. He didn't get EVERYTHING right, but he got the essence, and the ingenious understanding that there is a market and market forces which organise economies was a real break through
Read Mythologies by Roland Barthes... the essence seems correct because the essence is always repeated and therefore becomes essential to our culture... Markets are a function of desire and desire is produced... many market factors are real is a sense but also artificial... yes you need food but as an industry the productivity of it's resources could be streamlined better if essence of capital change a little bit... follow?
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
Edited by - St. Francis on 01/15/2003 20:05:27 |
|
|
|
JamesM
= Cult of Ray =
308 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2003 : 16:29:26
|
NOW LET'S DISCUSS SHROEDINGER'S CAT
Or not.
-Jimmy M. |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2003 : 16:36:35
|
Did I scare you?
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2003 : 18:40:51
|
my feelings on marxism can be summed up in the following:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3842/marxists_apartment.html
(reminds me of my house in college)..
st. francis - ever read barthes' THE PLEASURE OF THE TEXT?
i occasionally eat chateaubriand. |
Edited by - floop on 01/14/2003 18:43:30 |
|
|
|
JamesM
= Cult of Ray =
308 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2003 : 20:19:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by St. Francis
Did I scare you?
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel...
Yep.
-Jimmy M. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 09:04:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by St. Francis
Did I scare you?
More like you made me feel embarrassed for you. Me thinks you should read more Darwin and less Marx. |
|
|
|
zanni67
= Bio Elf =
643 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 12:28:48
|
Hey guys,
Fascinating conversation here, lots of different opinions. Good brainy talk if you ask me!
Zan
|
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 13:24:43
|
St. Francis - hmmm, I don't understand Marx to 'advocate' anything. Marx believed he discovered inevitable laws of human science, a twist (although a rather interesting one) on Comte's positivism.
Marx certainly had interesting insights into the economy as well. The problem of Marxist analysis in my view is that it is too Malthusian - it expects an increase in the income of the working class to lead to higher fertility rates, thus causing a series of crisis at the end of each the working class will be worse and worse off. But of course, population growth doesn't work like that.
All that given, I think Marx was the first economist who had a theory that described Market Cicles - which is great insight. Even today, I don't think anyone knows what causes cicles.
Omer |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 19:54:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by floop
my feelings on marxism can be summed up in the following:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3842/marxists_apartment.html
(reminds me of my house in college)..
st. francis - ever read barthes' THE PLEASURE OF THE TEXT?
i occasionally eat chateaubriand.
Word Floop, that was a pretty humours article... cheers.
As for Barthes I have yet to look into his literary Critism although it is my understanding that his work in liturature as excellent. I have been looking for Writing Degree Zero for sometime at used book stores etc... and have had difficulties... The Barthes stuff I have read deals more with his semionics (which would undoubtably be tied to his literary Critism) and cultural critiques.
If you like Barthes' journalistic style (Mytholgies... the Effle tower and other mythologies) give Umberto Eco a try. Travels in Hyperealty is excellent and quite funny... alot of it deals with his travels in other cultures... his interpretations of Marine World and Disney World are hillarious.
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
Edited by - St. Francis on 01/15/2003 20:21:33 |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 20:00:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by St. Francis
Did I scare you?
More like you made me feel embarrassed for you. Me thinks you should read more Darwin and less Marx.
Interesting post...
Sorry you feel embarrased, although, I would admit some examples may have been extream and the style might have been overly harsh. I do think all mentioned fell in line with the aspects of capitalism being discussed visa via Adam Smith...
As for the Darwin thing... are you refering to me being less evolved because of my clumsy spelling or do you consider me less evolved for having clung onto to idea which has been dismantled in the social evolution post 1991?
...do tell because your remark is rather unspecific, and as far as I can tell, other than a slag against me for having the courage to express my oppinion you seem to have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread...
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
Edited by - St. Francis on 01/15/2003 20:26:54 |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 20:16:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Omer
St. Francis - hmmm, I don't understand Marx to 'advocate' anything. Marx believed he discovered inevitable laws of human science, a twist (although a rather interesting one) on Comte's positivism.
Marx certainly had interesting insights into the economy as well. The problem of Marxist analysis in my view is that it is too Malthusian - it expects an increase in the income of the working class to lead to higher fertility rates, thus causing a series of crisis at the end of each the working class will be worse and worse off. But of course, population growth doesn't work like that.
All that given, I think Marx was the first economist who had a theory that described Market Cicles - which is great insight. Even today, I don't think anyone knows what causes cicles.
Omer
Good post... I am so tired but I wanted to say what's up before I split... I have to admit I might have (see previous post) come on to stong and I apologise... apparently I scared you colligue. sometimes I just puke rants and while it might not be pretty there will likely be more.
As for the population point I'm not convinced that is true when you look at the declining purchasing power of the middle class... I will express more later.
In terms of the cycles in capital/markets, I think there are tons of flows which contribute to this. Traditonally, it has been too complex coherently map so far. All I can do is mention some people who make interesting points about the chaos:
Deluize and Guattari do a good job (the shit is crazy though) by pointing out somethings related to desire and the production of desire... I owe them for my previous desire comment. Roland Barthes also makes intersing points about consumerism and Baudrialld [sic] is an interesting dude for simulations in social situations...
At the end of the day, I'm not convinced economics and markets are all graphs and math... a lot of it has to do with the publics movements towards or against ideas...
I'm out...
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
Edited by - St. Francis on 01/15/2003 20:39:55 |
|
|
|
misterwoe
= Cult of Ray =
Greece
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 20:27:09
|
It is important for people to learn history so it doesn't repeat itself...
Leonard Cohen is cool.
"What the fuck are we doing in the desert?" |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2003 : 02:32:53
|
Oh God, can we please keep the french nutcases out of this?
Omer |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2003 : 12:05:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by St. Francis
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by St. Francis
Did I scare you?
More like you made me feel embarrassed for you. Me thinks you should read more Darwin and less Marx.
Interesting post...
Sorry you feel embarrased, ...
As for the Darwin thing... are you refering to me being less evolved because of my clumsy spelling or do you consider me less evolved for having clung onto to idea which has been dismantled in the social evolution post 1991?
...do tell because your remark is rather unspecific, and as far as I can tell, other than a slag against me for having the courage to express my oppinion you seem to have contributed absolutely nothing to this thread...
St. Francis – No, the Darwin remark had nothing to do with your spelling or your personal degree of evolutionary progress. It was about my own opinion that at root both Marxism and socialism are refuted by evolutionary fundamentals. All life on this planet derives from DNA which has survived simply by being able to replicate itself through millennia of generations. In the case of animals this has involved defeating competitors of the same species. Humans that have survived to this point stand tall with hard skulls mostly as a result of having been better at cracking the skulls of their less competitive fellows. We are head crackers, plain and simple. Sure, we also excel at various forms of cooperation, but even then through cooperation at exploiting those less adept. The socialists dream of a more enlightened humanity that could hold in abeyance these bestial inclinations, with the hypothetical improvement that we could somehow persist indefinitely in an egalitarian state of global harmony. This flies completely in the face of a human nature produced by a ruthless process of natural selection. In fact, to the extent that humans achieve conditions of harmony and trust, they create the very context in which discord and violation of that trust are most likely to succeed. A lie works best in a community of habitual truth-tellers. Similarly, faith in peace fosters the prospects of the warlike. The same relationships prevail within the relatively ordered realm of economics. In the unlikely event that the socialists were able to establish a long-term regime of comradeship, once again they will be undermined by human nature. It's classically obvious that people work most productively for their own gain. When they aren't rewarded in accordance with the value of their work they work less, with those of greatest value shirking the most, thus depriving your ideal state of those upon whom it most depends. To hope for some different outcome testifies to some naive faith in the malleability of human nature, that somehow people will do the "right thing" by their comrades once they have been shown the "true" way. But it just doesn't happen. The most productive members of society drop out of socialist systems, so the government adopts totalitarian measures to coerce behavior and to alter the programming of the children to comport with the desired outcome. But the children can't be adequately reprogrammed against their true, evolutionarily derived natures, which are at bottom selfish. The best have to be "purged" and the rest cowed. Of course none of this stops socialism from rearing its hideous face time after time, simply because to the bovine it seems to offer the shortcut to success. The herd wants "justice". It "deserves" its "fair" share. And since it has earned almost nothing it has little to lose. And its leaders gain power by rallying masses. At bottom that's what this is all about: power. In evolutionary terms it's about struggle between
exploiters and exploited for reproductive success. It's not about justice or rights or morality. Both sides are equally selfish. Is it sad? Of course it is. The entire biosphere is little more than an orgy of violence, and for what? For indefinite replication of DNA on the crust of an insignificant rock plummeting through an infinite void of space and time. That's what all this cruelty and suffering is about: Nothing. But please do offer hope, for without hope the afflictions wouldn't be nearly so exquisitely vivid. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
