>>Now my grasp of English is really letting me down: what on Earth
>>is a "lateral perspective of history"?
> My guess is that it refers to an alternative interpretation (or, as history
>is interpretation an alternative history). A lateral perspective would be a
>history as seen from a different side. I have nothing against such histories
>so long as they are supported by facts and so long as they have not been
>contrived to further an agenda.
Thank you, Dave - that's just about what I meant. As this is a discussion
list, and not a university research list, I thought I'd be well within its
jurisdiction to question the dominant discourse known and taught as
'history'. I'm not a historian, or an archaeologist or an anthropologist, I
just like the way post-modern theorists 'deconstruct' current knowledge
('law' being my area) and so I'm merely interested in throwing some ideas
around to be discussed - such as alternatives to the usual research methods.
And why not? I'm not writing a thesis on this, or presenting myself as a
scholar on the subject (which I pointed out a couple of posts ago) - I just
find it interesting and enjoyable to discuss.
>>By the way, have a peanut.
>> Thanks. I threw all mine away.
Seems like David has plenty to spare.