Why isn't historiography discussed here?

Anybody talking about history is using a form of historiography.

>>2988379
I meant explicitly.

Everyone here is retarded and learns things only from memes.

>>2988377
Because all (((historiography))) boils down into revisionism, which is always done to serve a cultural marxist post-modernist agenda.

>>2988398
No it isn't. It's about the historical study of a topic. For example, Napoleonic historians diverged from the classical military history approach, to a focus on the domestic, of running the Empire. That was after the Sorbonne conference in 1969. It's not all Marxist and revisionist.

>>2988377
Because 95% or more of /his/ posters are retards repeating /int/ memes. Just yesterday I had to deal with a retard claiming that there was no concept of an "English" or "French" identity during the Hundred Years War, despite me citing to contemporary chroniclers dividing the two sides with explicitly those terms. Trying to get that caliber of person to discuss historiography is like trying to teach a bear table manners.

>>2988427
Okay I'll be honest. I don't browse this board because I actually study the subject at university. I'm trying to gauge what kind of people actually come here and why.

By asking the OP question, a simple one about the academic study of the discipline, it would become clear how many here actually know what they're talking about. History has clear values of study, as set out by Ranke, what's the point of discussing history here when nobody seems to know what they're talking about?

>>2988444
>Okay I'll be honest. I don't browse this board because I actually study the subject at university. I'm trying to gauge what kind of people actually come here and why.
I just graduated with a degree in linguistics. I don't browse the language threads here because they make me cringe. I would imagine history threads would maybe be the same for you, depending on your area of interest. Most posters here are laughably ignorant.

>>2988444
Well newfriend, if you look really closely at the OP pic you may notice that it's an image of Hitler and OP is a /pol/ crossposter trying to get a picture of Hitler on page 1 for as long as possible under the guise of having an actual discussion. You may also think to yourself it's not a good idea to post in these threads and report them to the mods for flagrant rule violations, but don't worry, the mods don't actually do anything on this board. So many people who are actually interested in history and want to talk knowledgeably about subjects that interest them left for greener pastures and different websites long ago. It sucks but that is the state of affairs.

>>2988455
You understand exactly then why I don't browse here.
>>2988458
Don't call me a newfriend I won't be back. I understand what you're saying. Yet I still find it bizarre that Hiroyuki Nishimura introduced this board considering 4chan would be one of the worst places imaginable to discuss history, what kind of people stay on this board?

>>2988455
>>2988444

Well, as the guy who posted >>2988427, I'm an attorney, and I actually like the occasional law thread. It does irritate me a bit when I have to deal with someone, especially on conlaw, spouting off ignorant crap, but that isn't too different from actually working, you know? But I don't really cringe, mostly I get annoyed at someone who sticks to their guns despite being demonstrably wrong.

When it comes to mainstream history, I'm at best an interested amateur, who at least thinks of himself as fairly knowledgeable about a few narrow fields of interest. But I would have to object to the notion that just because someone lacks a degree, that means they don't know what they're talking about. While I wouldn't want to try to win a debate on stuff even in my fields of interest with actual professionals in the field, I'm not wholly ignorant.

And for the third and final point; why should history be any different to any other topic of discussion that people hash to death when they have no idea what they're talking about? You see that in everything from medicine to sports to politics, and I very much doubt it will be going away anytime soon. People like to voice their opinions, for the simple pleasure of voicing them.

>>2988478
Things were great in 2015. Sure the board was half filled with WWII threads but they were actually about WWII. Then 2016 rolled and /pol/ became more vocal than ever and by the time Trump won /pol/ had been invaded by /r/the_donald and literal stormfront posters, who then migrated to the most accessible and "relevant" boards they could use, /tv/ and /v/ because they don't actually have hobbies, and then /his/ so they could post literal Nazi worship threads, most unironically, all disgusting.
Why are people still on this board? At this point I really don't know.

>>2988494
Good post thanks for the reply. Why I bring it up as an issue is because of the values of historical study. It's all about argument, however the structure of argument is your present a narrative supported by evidence. Instead here posters regurgitate narratives from each other or wherever else, this leads to the mass spread of misinformation and taking opinion for fact. Things are not clearly concrete in history, its mainly about perspectives. Things that are basic and fundamental to the study of history are ignored here and that raises questions as to why.

Your last paragraph is spot on. Agreed, like every topic, history is discussed at all levels for fun, I understand this, yet for some reason I wanted to make this thread. It was just wishful thinking on my part that there would be lurkers on this board who could actually contribute to quality discussions, and apparently a few have surfaced in this thread.

>>2988377
Because /his/ is full of dumb cunt xXxm3m3_p70xXx shitters that you'd barely be able to call hobbyists, let alone historians

>>2988377
For me it tends to be depressing

>>2988551
Why?

>>2988518
Why they're ignored here is obvious. This is a site that

A) Has 0 barriers to entry, and thus any idiot can and usually does join in

B) Thrives on argument. The most active threads on any board in 4chan are ones where you have lots of people passionately calling each other fucktards, redditors, shills, cucks, and whatever other insults are in vogue. It is so much easier to be disagreeable if you don't limit your stance to revision on the basis of things like evidence or coherence.

But, through it all, we do have good posters, and occasionally good threads. It's just tricky to get them together to have actually interesting discussions, but if you sift through enough crap, you'll find a few nuggets of gold.

>>2988554
>historiography
For older matters the fact that we may never know the full and proper truth of a situation gets to me. For more modern matters things tend to get dragged down to discussions on politics.

>>2988377
historiography is pretty shitty to discuss

>>2988377
>Why isn't historiography discussed here?

Because 99% of the board doesn't know what it is.