Before we take this off list... On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Bonobashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I notice that not all good historians are particularly into historiography. > Some of them are empiricists to a fault; that itself might be taken up as an > example of an historiographical position. > > One can't become an historian just by getting a degree, although the > process of getting MAs, M Phils and PhDs does help hone the craft. After > that, one has to specialise, to apply thought to the specialised area and > come to say something either frightfully original or painstakingly > well-researched and soundly founded on primary sources. > My only coughrolemodelcough is a guy called Muthiah. As far as I know, he hasn't written any paper, nor has he passed any test/exam for historians. He has done original, painstaking research though, and applied years of journalism experience to ferret out information about his subject - Madras history. This he popularises with his weekly columns in the newspaper, and his few books. > This is not what a student of history does, or is asked to do. > As I mentioned, I do not want to be a historian professionally, nor be a full-time student of history. I do want to know a lot more and lot deeper (digging wide and deep) about where I come from, where my family comes from, the things we did to get there. If, in the process, I am able to achieve some level of expertise/get acknowledged, all the better. C -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ravages http://www.linkedin.com/in/ravages http://www.selectiveamnesia.org/ +91-9884467463
