Difference between revisions of "Talk:American Historical Association"
From Conservapedia
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The OAH is not really a "rival" to the AHA. The former is an organization for historians who work on American history. The latter is for historians working in the USA, regardless of their research fields. This difference is reflected in the contents of the respective journals. Many, if not most USA-based historians of the United States belong to both groups AFAIK. [[User:StephenE|StephenE]] 22:25, 9 August 2009 (EDT) | The OAH is not really a "rival" to the AHA. The former is an organization for historians who work on American history. The latter is for historians working in the USA, regardless of their research fields. This difference is reflected in the contents of the respective journals. Many, if not most USA-based historians of the United States belong to both groups AFAIK. [[User:StephenE|StephenE]] 22:25, 9 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| − | ::they are rivals for members and prestige. (and I belong to both) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:49, 9 August 2009 (EDT) | + | ::Good points. I meant they are rivals for members and prestige. (and I belong to both) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:49, 9 August 2009 (EDT) |
Latest revision as of 03:58, August 10, 2009
The OAH is not really a "rival" to the AHA. The former is an organization for historians who work on American history. The latter is for historians working in the USA, regardless of their research fields. This difference is reflected in the contents of the respective journals. Many, if not most USA-based historians of the United States belong to both groups AFAIK. StephenE 22:25, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
- Good points. I meant they are rivals for members and prestige. (and I belong to both) RJJensen 22:49, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
