This blog is all about easily understood history. Anything on here that's more than a couple of lines started with a read-through of Wikipedia articles, followed by an online search for items difficult to believe - like Daddy Warbucks being (un-ironically) a conservative war profiter, or when trying to untangle what was behind the Spsnish match. And then followed by additional searches to support what Wikipedia says. Those searches can start from the very sources it references, and will often continue to other similar ones just in case.
As the article and source place mention, being able to look up the original source can make historical events much more real. Understanding what's being Luther's Theses is good, but now you can look them up online, examine every one, and from that have a personal opinion about what was the ultimate cause of the Reformation. Or make an assertion about the event, even if it sounds far-fetched. Or even consider whether an inference about it has easily accessible support as opposed to simply being a wild guess.
Indeed, it's possible to do exactly that with the Times' article. Readers don't have to accept the Times' version of the story, because you can go directly to the Stanford curriculum, and decide for yourself if what the article says is correct. Everyone can understand for themselves what is happening, go in new directions from this initial source, and perhaps find information that makes the event more memorable.
That's the sort of thing that keeps this blog going.
As the article and source place mention, being able to look up the original source can make historical events much more real. Understanding what's being Luther's Theses is good, but now you can look them up online, examine every one, and from that have a personal opinion about what was the ultimate cause of the Reformation. Or make an assertion about the event, even if it sounds far-fetched. Or even consider whether an inference about it has easily accessible support as opposed to simply being a wild guess.
Indeed, it's possible to do exactly that with the Times' article. Readers don't have to accept the Times' version of the story, because you can go directly to the Stanford curriculum, and decide for yourself if what the article says is correct. Everyone can understand for themselves what is happening, go in new directions from this initial source, and perhaps find information that makes the event more memorable.
That's the sort of thing that keeps this blog going.
No comments:
Post a Comment