By anyone. If there is no physical source, it can't be historic because no one would remember it. And if they would it would be a story, not a historical fact.
Printable View
By anyone. If there is no physical source, it can't be historic because no one would remember it. And if they would it would be a story, not a historical fact.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Historically significant. Will the future people look back and see it as historically significant. Another step on the road to equality.
A great man once said.
“It’s not the creed nor nationality that counts. It’s the man himself”
That surely extends to everything else, all born equal and so forth.
Are we there yet.
That's mental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
Are you saying that Kennedy being assassinated isn't historic? It was caught on film so even when we're all dead, that fact will still exist in an historical sense for future generations.
Facts are facts, to say they aren't in the absence of witnesses is kitchen sink zen.
Well yes, film counts as physical evidence, as would a written record of it. That's what I'm saying. In empirical research a historical event is something that has a physical record. The definition is a lot broader than that, but that's what it comes down to.
No, certainly not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
When we elect a minority and race doesn't merit a mention we will have "arrived".
Not one jot before.
Meaning that someone has to know about the event for it to be historical, otherwise how would we know about it?
Edit: This was meant as a post script for my own post, not Kev's.
Oh but we are, people never saw Obama as a black man, americans saw and see him as a leader with hope, somebody that can makes us feel proud to be americans again, to be respected in the world again.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4No, certainly not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
When we elect a minority and race doesn't merit a mention we will have "arrived".
Not one jot before.
Obama didn't run as a black man, he did as new hope.
Of course no black person voted for him strictly on the basis of colour.:blink:
Just as no white person voted against him on the same basis.:(
The race card was always in the deck even if you didn't see it played.
Still racists then.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4No, certainly not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
When we elect a minority and race doesn't merit a mention we will have "arrived".
Not one jot before.
Hopefully a step in the right direction tho'.