Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Gygaxian
May 29, 2013
I'll vote for the Welshman start, but on one condition; the ruler must be ethnically West African. Culturally Welsh of course, but a Black Duke of Wales sounds pretty cool.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gygaxian
May 29, 2013

Patter Song posted:

I'm still undecided between "Welsh king of Ghana" or "Ghanan king of Wales." Anyone care to convince me?

A Ghanan King of Wales could be Morgan Freeman, while a Welsh king of Ghana would be a kind of Tarzan, or a "white man's burden" thing. Which do you think is better?

Gygaxian fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Oct 6, 2013

Gygaxian
May 29, 2013

Patter Song posted:

Specialization is actually what academic history revolves around, and I kind of hate that about it. Your goal ends up to be the world expert on one tiny facet of history. Due to this, a lot of people studying ridiculous things is needed for the system to work.

Then you talk to a non-historian about your research into the diaries and writings of Captain Malcolm Kennedy, onetime British military attache to Japan in the World War I/immediately post-World War I era, and people give you blank stares.

EDIT: He truly was the first weeaboo. Imagine writing the words "Sou desu ka?" in an English book as someone responding to him in conversation without any sort of translation, or calling a rickshaw a rikusha. In a book written in the 1960s, no less.

I'm actually considering a career in history (not teaching, good lord not teaching) and the requirement to specialize really frustrates me. I like learning about and researching all sorts of history; why should I be confined to one facet?

Also my high school experience with history was alright, but that's because I had a great history teacher. The topics themselves were awful, but the state required us to learn them. They covered the Civil War and Revolutionary War way too long (we don't need to know every single major battle, guys), and international topics way too briefly. covering the topics themselves was terrible, and I can't imagine the experience of someone who didn't like my teacher and who didn't like history obsessively like I do.

  • Locked thread