I think it's a case of uglytermism. I understand now that it's equivalent
to 'nunc pro tunc' - a good example is the (itself now historical) Whig
version of history. Although I think it ironic that a term that disowns
moral judgement of the past is used as a moralistic label I would think
that from a point of view of history as a would-be disinterested narrative
it is a necessary avoidance by definition, but of course we know that the
present always recreates a past to suit: Shakespeare's historical plays are
famously a-historical yet work as pictures, super-metaphors, of historical
process.
best
Dave
On 12 April 2012 00:21, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 11/04/12 21:12, David Bircumshaw wrote:
>
>> Habeas corpus?
>>
> It looks a US concern, perhaps less also UK. This explained more to me
> http://us-intellectual-**history.blogspot.com.au/2010/**
> 11/jill-lepore-on-presentism.**html<http://us-intellectual-history.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/jill-lepore-on-presentism.html>
>
--
David Joseph Bircumshaw
"We are shallow, mababaw ang kaligayahan."
-* F. Sionil José*
Website and A Chide's Alphabet
http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/
|