Quote:
|
Examining an issue by 30 year periods is considered academically correct
|
not without justification it isnt.
i don't know where you got this idea from--the interval of 30 years has no particular significance. you might find something like that in analyses of professional cadres or generations, but even that would not stand without significant clarification concerning methods--which would include arguments for the use of a 30 year interval as some kind of requirement--but that would only follow from the content of the analysis--as an a priori standard, it means nothing.
but at least here there is some contact between what is being passed off as history, particularly from the conservative set, and history as it is understood outside that strange little land of hero-worshipping dilletantes making arbitrary claims by routing them through "history"--like that nonsense in ustwo's post about the reagan administration's clairvoyant abilities and the implication that computers (a commodity) brought down the ussr--which is something that i would not even imagine a writer as worthless as dinesh de souza would trot out as a serious claim, and that even in the middle of one of his hagiographies of reagan. it is an idiotic claim, as is everything that surrounds it: conservative history is not even history, it is a kind of authoritarian mythology. it is not worth taking seriously, here or anywhere else.