callisto
has called it a day
Well this question was OK, could have been better. I just babbled on about how different historians will interpret the case study in different ways as a result of context, values, experiences. Also their different methodologies, aims and purposes ment that we would be shown different aspects of the case study, and that the historians are important because they interpret the past, yet their views are 'inherently subjective', therefore to study the past, study the historian blah blah...
What did everyone else do?? What did you all think of the question?
What did everyone else do?? What did you all think of the question?