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.
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.
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.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
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.
Last edited by Skweeky; 11-05-2008 at 11:28 PM.
Of course no black person voted for him strictly on the basis of colour.
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.
Bookmarks