History Extension Debating Thread (ie. how to develop your "voice")

[sarah.l]

hey guys!

I have a good ol' classic history extension question to ask ya Which came first? The historian or the source?

Can history exist without sources?

So are historians dependant on sources to formulate their analysis? Or is the significance of a source dependant upon the historian, and the way in which they analyse them?

Hi Susie!! This is an awesome question, and I'm struggling to pick one or the other! There are definitely cases to make for both, and I believe it's deeply tied to one's 'school' (or at least 'purpose'). Those from revisionist and post-modern schools, as well as those seeking to write *historiography* (as opposed to emprircists, etc. and those who seek to write *history*) are considerable more likely, in my opinion, to place more emphasis on analysis/interpretation.
But I'm going to have to go with the latter option! Sources, compiled initially with their own biases and perspectives, are (inevitably) subject to a inherently subjective analysis from the historian!  Von Ranke is a great example: despite positing a historical methodology as free from personal bias as humanly possible, he heavily favored primary sources and therefore placed significance on certain sources over others.

Here is an extract from Keith Windshuttle's work 'The Killing of History', published in 1994. I want everyone to try and use it as a source to answer this question (like you would in an exam) You can agree or disagree with his assessment!

"It is important to emphasise that those who insist that all historic evidence is inherently subjective are wrong. Archive documents have a reality and objectivity of their own. The names, numbers and expressions on the pages do not change, no matter who is looking at them, and irrespective of the purposes, ideologies and interpretations that might be brought to bear upon them. Historians are not free to interpret evidence according to their theories or prejudices. The evidence itself will restrict the purposes for which it can be used.

I can't help but disagree with this on a few fronts! It's pretty naive to believe that dates, figures and names aren't subject to even a small degree of subjectivity. It's kinda hard to order my thoughts on this, so I'm gonna break it down into dot points 

a) Dates are entirely subject to a totally made up system of ordered chronology!!

The various ways people have recorded time over time (lol) is incredibly diverse! No one living in the ancient world decided that they were living in year -100, of course. We've retrospectively inflicted this system upon them. Then, of course, these dates could be fabricated/entirely false (for a number of reasons; propaganda/cover-ups, miscommunication/mistranslation, etc.)
Of course, these systems are even MORE problematic when one considers the negative effects of periodization - we organize certain dates within deeply stereotypical categories which  (i) remove context, (ii) enforce a easily understood 'status quo' which ignores outliers and (iii) is subject to our perceptions of both the past and the present (in that we both form 'expectations' of certain periods - i.e. The Medieval period was one of supposed academic stagnation - and we apply realities of the present onto the past - i.e. the "kitchen bench in Pomepii" fiasco).
Of course, no body is saying documented events didn't happen at all (although, we do have to take into account the roles of religion and simply sheer imagination in history, especially the histories of ancient times - Alexander the Great comes to mind, especially the story of the Gordian Knot). Rather, that the 'definite' figure pinned to events, especially in terms of chronology, is fraught with subjectivity.

b) Figures - stats, ages, etc. are DEFINITELY not objective either!!

There a a MYRIAD of ways 'statistics', ages and other factors can be skewed by history! The most obvious I can think of is sheer propaganda/governmental cover-ups (you can probably tell I don't trust governments much ); inflating or deflating numbers to support political agendas is incredibly common! Another, quite important factor is that statistics - especially those from wars - are often estimations and/or are rounded up/down. The figures presented by important institutions (as they almost always are) are pretty much always skewed towards the agenda of the source in this way - even simply rounding a number up or down relates back to biases.

Linguistic relativism is also deeply important when viewing sources!! It presents pretty major problem: translations will never truly capture the entirety of a message due to (i) the innate biases of a translator (this can be seen in a number of ways - whether the translator is possibly un/sympathetic to a certain event/nationality/etc. and/or the desire to constantly relate language to the translator's reality - one often struggles to understand concepts that have no place in their relative reality! How can someone who's lived in a house and buys groceries comprehend the ideas behind, say, a nomadic hunter?) , and (ii) the fact that some words express concepts that simply don't have translations for (German is a great example of a language that expresses complex emotions and ideas with no simple translations into English - we all indulge in some schadenfreude every now and again, but it's pretty hard to express  ) Again, no one is arguing an event didn't necessarily happen - but one can't and shouldn't take supposed "facts" as objective when they are in fact open to a number of possible 'skews'
This all reminds me of the controversy surrounding Aisha bint Abi Bakr - as a personal contributor to the Hadith, she affirms that she was married to the Prophet Muhammad at age 9 (obviously viewed quite poorly in today's terms, but it was pretty par for the course within her context). Despite her explicitly stating this age, scholars STILL debate whether this is accurate or not, showing that supposed 'definite figures' are very much open to questioning.

c) Finally, all sources (even figures, stats and other numbers) are interpretations of events!

While this is a argument that's been woven into my last two points, I think it merits it's own point!
It's pretty obvious of course, and I don't think many would argue with me on this, but it brings up one of my fave pieces of art - The Treachery of Images. ((I tried to insert the image but I'm hopeless lol - but the gist is, it's a drawing of a pipe with the words "This is not a pipe" underneath)) The point the painting - and I - are trying to make is that it's actually a DRAWING (aka. representation) of a pipe, not an actual pipe. What I'm trying to say is that no matter how supposedly accurate your perspective/understanding of a situation is (and how good your drawing of a pipe is  ) it's always merely a representation of events. ALL primary sources, including statistics, names, dates, ages, etc. are always gonna be subject to SOMETHING historiographical, no matter how "objective" they seem.

***On a side note: why do numbers have such a sense of "objectivity" or "logic" to them?? As if numbers aren't just as influenced by historiography as language?? It's always frustrated me 

This is true even of those documents for which all historians agree that varying interpretations are possible. In these cases, the range of possibilities is always finite and can be subject to debate. Ambiguity or lack of clarity do not justify a Derridean dissolution into nullity. Moreover, once it has been deployed, the documentary evidence is there, on the historic record, for anyone else to examine for themselves. Footnoted references and proper documentation are essential to the practise of the discipline. This means that the work of historians, like that of scientists, may be subject to both corroboration and testability by others in their field.

While it is true that historians often come to the task of writing history with the aim of pushing a certain kind of theory, of establishing a certain point, or of solving a certain problem, one of the most common experiences is that the evidence they find leads them to modify their original approach. When they go looking for evidence, they do not simply find the one thing they are looking for. Most will find many others that they had not anticipated. The result, more often than not, is that this unexpected evidence will suggest alternative arguments, interpretations and conclusions, and different problems to pursue. In other words, the evidence often makes historians change their minds, quite contrary to the claims of those who assert that the reverse is true. Although theories or values might inspire the origins of an historic project, in the end it is the evidence itself that determines what case it is possible to make."

This also bothers me, to a certain degree. The assumption here is (if I've read this correctly) is that historians naturally reach the same / similar interpretations due to the fact that evidence has an 'essence' of objectivity at it's heart. And while I agree that there is an objectivity that can be found in so-called 'lower-order facts' (maybe I'm more of a relativist in this sense - at no point will I argue that, say, the Holocaust didn't happen). But at the same time, I do firmly believe one can reach conclusions that can both (i) exist parallel to other interpretations and (ii) even contradict evidence in certain regards!! For example, take Australian indigenous populations and their contact with European imperialist powers - if all sources (presumably almost entirely from the Western perspective, as Australian indigenous didn't have written language ***pls correct me if I'm wrong***) suggest that the indigenous people are, say, savage/uncivilized/unintelligent, one isn't forced to agree with this! Indeed, it would be both deeply offensive and incredibly wrong to assume that just because such evidence states this.

Thanks for the question!! 
- Sarah

[sudodds]

Hey guys,
We were talking about Holocaust denial and David Irving a little while ago (on this thread) and I just went over Anti-post modernism and holocaust denial today in class. Something that Sarah referred to was the ted talk by Deborah Lipstadt who is the person who took Irving to court.We watched it today and it was a really interesting video and brings up some historiological issues towards the end. This is the link: https://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_lipstadt_behind_the_lies_of_holocaust_denial#t-785348

Ahaha, I guess we were just one step ahead over here So good that you covered it in class as well, because it is a FANTASTIC example to include in your essays.

Foucault is a really interesting read. We read an excerpt of his book on punishment and it is really gruesome and detailed about medieval punishments but it was really good.  We haven't studied Derrida-what did he write about?

We didn't really study Foucault or Derrida separately, so I'm not sure where ones idea ends and the other begins, however what we learned about them was their study of linguistics, and the idea of the changing signifier - how meaning is interpretive and subjective, rather than set in stone. This is a concept that I personally find super interesting, and extremely pertinent to today!

We hear a lot about "definitions", particularly when it comes to social justice issues, such as feminism, civil rights and transphobia. Both the left and the right will commonly pull up the definition of a word as an argument, i.e. the definitions of the word "feminism", "gender", "sex" and racism - arguing that these definitions must be strictly upheld, and if you disagree with the definition then you are wrong. In my opinion, whether on the left or on the right, this argument is weak, as it fails to account for not only the interpretive, but also ever evolving nature of language.

"Feminism" I think is a really interesting example of this. I personally consider myself a feminist, find the label comfortable, and subscribe to the official definition of feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." However many people do not subscribe to this definition, and view the movement as something "less equal" - promoting female rights and freedoms over male. Many also don't believe that feminism is inclusive enough of other voices/marginalised groups in society. Clearly, these two groups have differing interpretations of the word - and I personally think that is okay, and should be accepted (on the groups that they support the principles of the definition, "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes," even if they don't believe that the word "Feminism" suits it). Like contrary to what many people I find within feminist social circles seem to believe today, I really don't mind if someone would prefer to be called an "egalitarian", if they believe that that suits them better I think people put too much emphasis on language and meaning, when both are subjective - when instead they should be focusing on the way people act and conduct themselves (which is again subjective - but I believe a bit more tangible).

Would be really interested to hear what everyone thinks about this issue! Do you believe that definitions can be official or all encompassing? Or is language, as Derrida and Foucault believe, more subjective, and what are some implications that may have on the discipline of history? (if we could try and avoid this turning into an actual feminist debate though that would be great, as this isn't really the place for that - keep it linguistic )!

Actually, yeah i'm reading your argument and I completely agree with it . The hypothesis of the historian is going to affect their methodology, interpretation and the way they write their histories.

This is why I love this thread - through discussion we can often realise new conclusions, which is just so awesome I've definitely had a lot of my opinions challenged by the things written on this thread 

I feel like that is still going to happen and I'm not too sure what we can do about it. I think that it can be a both an intentional and unintentional thing and some historians may do it more then others. This would be a more subjective style of history as they are biased in their choice of sources. I think that the work can still be somewhat useful, however it doesn't show a balanced view of history and instead may lead to wrong conclusions as we could be missing important historical information.
Thanks for your example , also who is Reagan, I looked him up and know that he was a president-but I don't know a whole lot about US history.

Yeah, I definitely agree that it is inevitable - however I also don't believe that it is entirely the historians fault (though as I said, I do believe that their own personal prejudices and views are going to have a significant impact). Just consider the sheer breadth AND brevity of historiography - on the one hand, it is literally impossible to read everything. Like absolutely impossible, there is just too much, especially when we take into account our increased access to historical record through new technology like the internet! However on the other hand, as Charles Beard states, "“both documentation and research are partial, [and therefore] it follows that the total actuality is not factually knowable to any historian, however laborious, judicial or faithful he may be in his procedure.” - we don't have all the sources, and many sources are missing critical elements - which is also going to make it much harder for a historian to provide this balanced approach.

Opinions?

I don't want to tear your interpretation to shreds-I kinda agree with what your saying . I believe that it depends on what you define a source to be and with your definition this makes heaps of sense. (I can't really come up with a lot on this at the moment or word my ideas, but might edit more in later).

back to definitions again Yet another example of the relevance of Derrida and Foucault's work!

Definitely put uni above ATARnotes stuff-we want you to do well! I'll definitely try to debate with everybody !
Thanks again!,
Katie

Naww thanks ahaha - I definitely use this site as procrastination lol. And yay! Fantastic, you're an absolute star Katie!

Susie

[katie,rinos]

We didn't really study Foucault or Derrida separately, so I'm not sure where ones idea ends and the other begins, however what we learned about them was their study of linguistics, and the idea of the changing signifier - how meaning is interpretive and subjective, rather than set in stone. This is a concept that I personally find super interesting, and extremely pertinent to today!

We hear a lot about "definitions", particularly when it comes to social justice issues, such as feminism, civil rights and transphobia. Both the left and the right will commonly pull up the definition of a word as an argument, i.e. the definitions of the word "feminism", "gender", "sex" and racism - arguing that these definitions must be strictly upheld, and if you disagree with the definition then you are wrong. In my opinion, whether on the left or on the right, this argument is weak, as it fails to account for not only the interpretive, but also ever evolving nature of language.

"Feminism" I think is a really interesting example of this. I personally consider myself a feminist, find the label comfortable, and subscribe to the official definition of feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." However many people do not subscribe to this definition, and view the movement as something "less equal" - promoting female rights and freedoms over male. Many also don't believe that feminism is inclusive enough of other voices/marginalised groups in society. Clearly, these two groups have differing interpretations of the word - and I personally think that is okay, and should be accepted (on the groups that they support the principles of the definition, "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes," even if they don't believe that the word "Feminism" suits it). Like contrary to what many people I find within feminist social circles seem to believe today, I really don't mind if someone would prefer to be called an "egalitarian", if they believe that that suits them better I think people put too much emphasis on language and meaning, when both are subjective - when instead they should be focusing on the way people act and conduct themselves (which is again subjective - but I believe a bit more tangible).

Would be really interested to hear what everyone thinks about this issue! Do you believe that definitions can be official or all encompassing? Or is language, as Derrida and Foucault believe, more subjective, and what are some implications that may have on the discipline of history? (if we could try and avoid this turning into an actual feminist debate though that would be great, as this isn't really the place for that - keep it linguistic )!

So, when I first heard the idea of post-structuralism and signifiers I thought it was a bit weird. Like, if I see a butterfly, I would call it a butterfly (and this  kinda can't really be disputed). But with your examples, I'm starting to understand and agree that there can be different interpretations on language and definitions of words over time. I think that the definitions can be based on the values of society at times and there can be several conflicting definitions occurring at the same time. If you think about, there are quite a few words today that have more then one meaning. I think this will be difficult for historians to differentiate between the definitions when studying time periods and texts written in the past.

Yeah, I definitely agree that it is inevitable - however I also don't believe that it is entirely the historians fault (though as I said, I do believe that their own personal prejudices and views are going to have a significant impact). Just consider the sheer breadth AND brevity of historiography - on the one hand, it is literally impossible to read everything. Like absolutely impossible, there is just too much, especially when we take into account our increased access to historical record through new technology like the internet! However on the other hand, as Charles Beard states, "“both documentation and research are partial, [and therefore] it follows that the total actuality is not factually knowable to any historian, however laborious, judicial or faithful he may be in his procedure.” - we don't have all the sources, and many sources are missing critical elements - which is also going to make it much harder for a historian to provide this balanced approach.
Opinions?

Yeah-I agree with your argument here. Even with our history extension projects, I had heaps of research that didn't find it's way into my essay. We cannot record everything because there is so much information. However, like Beard said even sources can be missing some valuable information or non-existent now (For example-didn't Agrippina wrote a diary that has now gone missing/lost. This could provide us with a lot of information about her and the way that she was actually thinking).

back to definitions again Yet another example of the relevance of Derrida and Foucault's work!

Yep-definitely starting to believe more in their use of signifiers and language.

Also, we were doing some revision in class today for trials and were going over some past HSC questions. I ended up looking at the 2011 question 'To what extent do historians 'own' history?' and was a bit confused in how I would answer this. I was talking to my teacher and she said that she would argue no, because historians have little control over their anterior motives, and I thought that I would use Public history and Foucault. However, I would like to know how you guys would interpret and answer this. What historians would you use?
Thanks again Susie

[sudodds]

Hi Susie!! This is an awesome question, and I'm struggling to pick one or the other! There are definitely cases to make for both, and I believe it's deeply tied to one's 'school' (or at least 'purpose').

I think it is quite a tricky question as well - definitely no clear answer, but there never is in history extension I tried my best to replicate an exam style question with this one - will post another tonight And I most certainly agree - the school/purpose of a historian is going to radically change the way in which this question is perceived - so keen to work out which one you fall under

Those from revisionist and post-modern schools, as well as those seeking to write *historiography* (as opposed to emprircists, etc. and those who seek to write *history*) are considerable more likely, in my opinion, to place more emphasis on analysis/interpretation.

Interesting distinction, that for the most part I agree with you on! However remember that there are some empiricist historiographers as well - Geoffrey Elton for example! But yes, for the most part I agree - a lot of it comes down to this notion of objectivity. If you believe that objectivity is attainable, then it has to be obtained from somewhere - sources, which would explain the empiricist position (and vice versa).

But I'm going to have to go with the latter option! Sources, compiled initially with their own biases and perspectives, are (inevitably) subject to a inherently subjective analysis from the historian!  Von Ranke is a great example: despite positing a historical methodology as free from personal bias as humanly possible, he heavily favored primary sources and therefore placed significance on certain sources over others.

I love that despite how nuanced this debate is, you have still taken a strong stance - shows your voice Von Ranke is a fantastic example that i'm so glad you mentioned! Structurally speaking his methodology is imo undeniably great - like there hasn't been another methodology that has taken over - find sources, analyse sources, make a judgement on sources, write about source findings. No one is ever going to top that. However it is very easy to accept that at face value, and just assume that there are no flaws to the way in which it was conducted. Though I do believe Von Ranke has been unfairly treated by historiographers (particularly the mistranslation of "how it essentially (not actually) was"), he definitely isn't faultless, and he set the precedent that the only "worthwhile" sources were primary, official documents - which I wholeheartedly disagree with. So glad that we have historians such as Bernard Porter smashing this suggestion to pieces, as he looked at such a range of sources when writing "the Absent Minded Imperialist" - including working class prints, literature and school textbooks, that so often get neglected, but reveal a whole new (and arguably more real) side to history!

I can't help but disagree with this on a few fronts! It's pretty naive to believe that dates, figures and names aren't subject to even a small degree of subjectivity. It's kinda hard to order my thoughts on this, so I'm gonna break it down into dot points 

Literally so pumped that someone mentioned this!!

a) Dates are entirely subject to a totally made up system of ordered chronology!!

The various ways people have recorded time over time (lol) is incredibly diverse! No one living in the ancient world decided that they were living in year -100, of course. We've retrospectively inflicted this system upon them. Then, of course, these dates could be fabricated/entirely false (for a number of reasons; propaganda/cover-ups, miscommunication/mistranslation, etc.)

Such a unique, interesting argument, that I didn't consider when reading through the source, yet so totally true! It's so interesting how we categorise the past, and where we establish breaks. Like the Renaissance for example - such a shaky shaky time period (if we can even call it that!). One of my students wrote her major work on this issue. How do we distinguish between the Medieval period, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? Our interpretation is almost entirely based on these notions of different forms/styles art, culture and philosophy - overwhelmingly "intellectual" upper-class pursuits, that were not reflective of the general populace. Did those who were living in the Renaissance feel the transition between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? Hell no! As you say, we placed that period break on the past retrospectively. I wonder what our period will be known as in 1000 years? (if humanity makes it that far).

Also love your final point about how dates can be both purposely and accidentally wrong as well! Can you think of any examples of this happening?

Of course, these systems are even MORE problematic when one considers the negative effects of periodization - we organize certain dates within deeply stereotypical categories which  (i) remove context, (ii) enforce a easily understood 'status quo' which ignores outliers and (iii) is subject to our perceptions of both the past and the present (in that we both form 'expectations' of certain periods - i.e. The Medieval period was one of supposed academic stagnation - and we apply realities of the present onto the past - i.e. the "kitchen bench in Pomepii" fiasco)

Exactly what I was refering too above! Fantastic examples as well - for those who don't know about the "kitchen bench in Pompeii", Sarah is referring to, Mary Beard, a famous British historian, discovered that a stone slab found in Pompeii, that had originally been believed to be a kitchen bench top was actually an alter (most likely a Lararium, given its household nature). This is just such a classic example of how we look at history through a "modern day" lens - trying to find both what divides us, and unites us from and with past peoples, cultures and societies. That is why I believe that history is in many ways an attempt to learn about the present, as we base much of our understanding of the past upon the ways in which they are similar and dissimilar to ourselves. Like archaeologists literally just saw a stone slab in what was believed to be a "kitchen" (which is furthermore a very arbitrary assessment - as we now know that the rooms of houses in Pompeii were multipurpose) and thought - "well in our kitchens we need a place to prepare food, so this must be the ancient version of that!".

Of course, no body is saying documented events didn't happen at all (although, we do have to take into account the roles of religion and simply sheer imagination in history, especially the histories of ancient times - Alexander the Great comes to mind, especially the story of the Gordian Knot). Rather, that the 'definite' figure pinned to events, especially in terms of chronology, is fraught with subjectivity.

Another great point! Particularly when it comes to Ancient history, there are so many "events" (and cities, personalities, etc.) that have apparently happened/existed that we aren't 100% sure about. Lycurgus is a great example from Ancient Sparta - the potentially mythical leader who brought about the "Great Rhetra" (Spartan constitution). The city of Atlantis, and whether it was actually a real city is another. My favourite example though is probably the City of Troy. Based upon the description of Troy in Homer's 'The Iliad' - the actual archeological dig has revealed multiple cities. Assumptions have been made as to which of these cities is actually Troy - but no definitive answer has been reached. Heinrich Schliemann (who took credit for the discovery) haphazardly blasted his way down to the second city in the stratigraphy, where he found what he believed were the jewels that once belonged to Helen of Troy. He was incorrect - these jewels were actually 1000 years older than the time described in Homer's ' The Iliad' and today archaeologists believe that the sixth and seventh oldest cities found in layers at Hisarlik are the best candidates for the Troy of The Iliad. A little bit off topic, but just further demonstrates that sometimes the supposedly "objective' "who, where, what, when" can often be far from it!

b) Figures - stats, ages, etc. are DEFINITELY not objective either!!

There a a MYRIAD of ways 'statistics', ages and other factors can be skewed by history! The most obvious I can think of is sheer propaganda/governmental cover-ups (you can probably tell I don't trust governments much ); inflating or deflating numbers to support political agendas is incredibly common!

Happens all the time! WW1 propaganda is a great example of this (particularly the German side, who would often just completely make up stats in order to keep morale high on the home front). Perhaps a controversial example, but many believe that the death rates of the Soviet Union under Stalinism have also been artificially inflated to support the Western anti-communist agenda, due to the fact that at the same time population growth was extremely high - which does not corroborate with the millions of people Stalin supposedly killed at the time. (just want to clarify here - though I do think it is important to think critically about the way in which the Soviet Union and communism as an ideology is presented by Western/American society, particularly during the Cold War period, this is by no means an attempt to suggest that Stalin was a "good guy" who has been unfairly treated by history, or to minimise the atrocities committed under his regime, just an interesting example!).

Another, quite important factor is that statistics - especially those from wars - are often estimations and/or are rounded up/down. The figures presented by important institutions (as they almost always are) are pretty much always skewed towards the agenda of the source in this way - even simply rounding a number up or down relates back to biases.

Also super shaky in the way these stats are interpreted, especially "casualty" stats, as there isn't really a universally accepted definition of a "casualty". I for one always assumed casualty meant death - like you weren't a casualty unless you had been killed. However only recently was I informed that injury is also taken into account within these stats, which I felt was a little bit iffy, as just from that one number you cannot distinguish the severity of a situation. For example you could have two situations with 100 casualties - however one of them had only two survivors that were badly injured, while the other had only two deaths, while all others survived with injury. If we were just given the stat and no other info, we would probably assume that these two events were just as bad as the other, despite the fatality stats of the prior being much higher. Furthermore, how do we assess to what extent an injury is bad enough to be considered a casualty?

Linguistic relativism is also deeply important when viewing sources!! It presents pretty major problem: translations will never truly capture the entirety of a message due to (i) the innate biases of a translator (this can be seen in a number of ways - whether the translator is possibly un/sympathetic to a certain event/nationality/etc. and/or the desire to constantly relate language to the translator's reality - one often struggles to understand concepts that have no place in their relative reality! How can someone who's lived in a house and buys groceries comprehend the ideas behind, say, a nomadic hunter?) , and (ii) the fact that some words express concepts that simply don't have translations for (German is a great example of a language that expresses complex emotions and ideas with no simple translations into English - we all indulge in some schadenfreude every now and again, but it's pretty hard to express  ) Again, no one is arguing an event didn't necessarily happen - but one can't and shouldn't take supposed "facts" as objective when they are in fact open to a number of possible 'skews'.

This all reminds me of the controversy surrounding Aisha bint Abi Bakr - as a personal contributor to the Hadith, she affirms that she was married to the Prophet Muhammad at age 9 (obviously viewed quite poorly in today's terms, but it was pretty par for the course within her context). Despite her explicitly stating this age, scholars STILL debate whether this is accurate or not, showing that supposed 'definite figures' are very much open to questioning.

Awesome point! Often "objective" sentences, just relaying the facts are far from it! A student was giving me an example of this recently in one of our sessions. Consider these two sentences: "Bombs fell on Baghdad", "Bombs were dropped on Baghdad" though both are objectively true, they are subjective in their construction. The first one omits the action committed - it doesn't assert that the bombs fell as a result of someone purposely dropping them on the city. The second takes this into account, but it doesn't detail who dropped them, and also doesn't detail why. Even sentences that are "objective" can reveal their subjectivity through their construction and omission!

Also fantastic example! I didn't realise this was a historiographical debate - how interesting!

c) Finally, all sources (even figures, stats and other numbers) are interpretations of events!

While this is a argument that's been woven into my last two points, I think it merits it's own point!
It's pretty obvious of course, and I don't think many would argue with me on this, but it brings up one of my fave pieces of art - The Treachery of Images. ((I tried to insert the image but I'm hopeless lol - but the gist is, it's a drawing of a pipe with the words "This is not a pipe" underneath))

Flashbacks to year 9 Visual Arts right now omg aha - Magritte right? This is the image I believe you are referring too!

The point the painting - and I - are trying to make is that it's actually a DRAWING (aka. representation) of a pipe, not an actual pipe. What I'm trying to say is that no matter how supposedly accurate your perspective/understanding of a situation is (and how good your drawing of a pipe is  ) it's always merely a representation of events. ALL primary sources, including statistics, names, dates, ages, etc. are always gonna be subject to SOMETHING historiographical, no matter how "objective" they seem.

***On a side note: why do numbers have such a sense of "objectivity" or "logic" to them?? As if numbers aren't just as influenced by historiography as language?? It's always frustrated me 

100% agree with you here! We can never fully grasp history, just the essence of it. This was really highlighted to me today actually - just got back from watching Dunkirk. As I have detailed on this thread I usually hate historical fiction, but I'll admit right now this movie was spectacular, and I think one of the reasons I thought it was so good is that it had such a strong sense of realism. Like I genuinely believe that movie is the closest any of us will ever get to experience what it was like during WWII (one of the last remaining soliders from Dunkirk actually watched the film recently and remarked it's accuracy, which I think it very interesting!), and I strongly urge everyone to go see it - an absolutely fantastic film. But even so, even though I believe it got very close to what it would actually be like - it is still only a representation. I am still sitting in a cinema theatre, knowing that I am safe, and knowing that all the actors are safe as well. Again, quite a bit off topic aha, but still thought it was relevant to this discussion of representation and objectivity.

I AGREE with you when it comes to numbers - though I wonder if that is just because I have never understood them very well to begin with

This also bothers me, to a certain degree. The assumption here is (if I've read this correctly) is that historians naturally reach the same / similar interpretations due to the fact that evidence has an 'essence' of objectivity at it's heart. And while I agree that there is an objectivity that can be found in so-called 'lower-order facts' (maybe I'm more of a relativist in this sense - at no point will I argue that, say, the Holocaust didn't happen). But at the same time, I do firmly believe one can reach conclusions that can both (i) exist parallel to other interpretations and (ii) even contradict evidence in certain regards!! For example, take Australian indigenous populations and their contact with European imperialist powers - if all sources (presumably almost entirely from the Western perspective, as Australian indigenous didn't have written language ***pls correct me if I'm wrong***) suggest that the indigenous people are, say, savage/uncivilized/unintelligent, one isn't forced to agree with this! Indeed, it would be both deeply offensive and incredibly wrong to assume that just because such evidence states this.

Thanks for the question!! 
- Sarah

Fantastic point! History is most definitely related to power after all - i'm sure we have all heard the phrase "history is written by the winners". What a great example you have used also. Another example I can think of is the way in which supposedly "mad" figures of antiquity, such as Gaius/Caligula have endured such as negative legacy. Really some of our only evidence of this comes from Ancient historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius (who if you study the Julio-Claudians in Ancient you will know have a very very strong bias against the Julio-Claudian dynasty from which Gaius comes from, with a, imo, very explicit aim to discredit this dynasty in order to vicariously critique the current) - our sources, who are frought with a very clear and detrimental bias, and in turn have shaped history. We view his actions as "crazy" - such as him ordering the Army, currently on expedition to conquer Britain to "pick up seashells", and making his favourite horse Ignatius consul - when really, "seashells" is potentially a mistranslation of "tent" (which would make more sense), and making his horse consul was more likely an act of opposition against the Senate, suggesting that they were not fulling their duties effectively, and that a horse could do a better job.


Thank you so much for your responses! Some really fantastic argument here. Sorry it took me a while to answer - wanted to make sure I could deal with each argument properly

Susie

[sudodds]

hey guys!

In my Media Arts class, we're looking at documentary film making (literally so pumped), which has meant watching a tonne of documentaries! One that we watched recently I found incredibly interesting. It was a clip from Chris Marker's 'Letters from Siberia' in 1957 - so during the Cold War. The clip features a discussion upon the nature of objectivity, with the narrator looking at the same clip from three different perspectives - one positive, one negative and one neutral.

I thought it was really really interesting, and relates well to one of the very first debates we had on this thread - "can history be objective?", which I thought we could maybe come back to again, given that I'm sure all of our opinions are now much more informed than however many months ago that debate was started. So what is your opinion - can history be objective? Is objectivity the goal? Has your belief changed, or is it still the same? Do you have any more reasons that you have found to affirm/challenge your belief? Do you think the "neutral" stance in the clip is actually neutral?

Discuss

Susie

[sudodds]

sorry for the triple post natmod/admins. not sorry i'm moderator for this section i can do what i want bitchessss

With trials fast approaching (some you for Monday!) I thought I'd post another, some more exam style questions for you guys to tackle

What constitutes a historian?

The definition of a historian, according to google is: "an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon."

What do you think? Is that a pretty accurate assessment of the role of a historian? Or do you think it is limited - and if so, to what extent, and why?

Furthermore, kinda related, but more in relation to your case studies (so section II of the paper), I'm really interested to see how you would respond to this kinda statement, made by Alan Bullock in 'The Historian's Purpose':

"It is often the preoccupations and experiences of his own time which suggest to an historian the particular subject or period which he takes up. But once he begins work, the question he is trying to answer is: What happened? His interest is in the past, not in the present or the future."

Keen to hear your thoughts!

Susie

[katie,rinos]

What constitutes a historian?

The definition of a historian, according to google is: "an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon."

What do you think? Is that a pretty accurate assessment of the role of a historian? Or do you think it is limited - and if so, to what extent, and why?

I think that the definition takes a bit of a public history stance-everybody can be a historian thing. I think the ‘expert or student’ is a bit conflicting. In my idea an expert is someone who has been to university, read books, travelled to the places they are studying and have been involved in that particular field for years-like they are really knowledgeable. But a student could be anybody. By this definition, we could all be historians just because we are studying history. The definition doesn’t distinguish between the expert and a student. I was looking at a few other definitions and dictionary.com just describes a historian as “an expert in history”, or “a writer of history”, and leaves the student part out altogether.

Also, the definition doesn’t really say what a historian does, except that they study history. By this definition, anyone who studies the past is a historian-which I don’t think is really true in some circumstances (just because we are writing essays in Ancient, doesn’t make us a historian). However, I think that there are many different roles to a historian and that one definition might not be able to encompass every role. There are a lot of different ways a historian can produce their history and not just through academic books now (film, documentaries, museums, television, even video games can tell history. Last year my friend did a project in modern about the historical accuracy of WW1 video games.).

I think that the second part of the definition is slightly limiting as well. I don’t think that it would include the study of big history. I’m not too sure if it would include a conceptual study of history (such as Foucault’s work on the way punishment changed over time).

Furthermore, kinda related, but more in relation to your case studies (so section II of the paper), I'm really interested to see how you would respond to this kinda statement, made by Alan Bullock in 'The Historian's Purpose':

"It is often the preoccupations and experiences of his own time which suggest to an historian the particular subject or period which he takes up. But once he begins work, the question he is trying to answer is: What happened? His interest is in the past, not in the present or the future."

Ok, so I’m going to end up talking about JFK-which is my case study
So there are three main schools of history-the Camelot, revisionist and post revisionist schools. They all write after Kennedy’s death but the Camelot’s are the first to write.

The Camelot school is basically very pro-Kennedy/believes that most of Kennedys actions were good. Schlesinger was one of Kennedy’s close friends and was called a Kennedy loyalist for most of the campaign. Due to this, when writing he would overlook Kennedy’s mistakes and leave out some negative information. Also, due to his more personal nature with Kennedy he included personal recollections and insights as evidence when writing.
The other Camelot historian is Sorenson, who was Kennedy’s presidential advisor, lawyer and writer-so also very close to him. He also used a lot of personal recollection and others who had worked with Kennedy. He was very close to Kennedy and admired Kennedy’s actions.  Therefore, the efforts of the Camelot historians were to preserve their views of Kennedy which were largely made up of friendship and admiration. Due to this their interests were also in the present and future as they wished to manipulate the way that Kennedy was seen to future generations.

The revisionist school took the complete opposite viewpoints and were very critical of Kennedy’s actions as president. Hersh worked as a journalist for the city news Bureau in 1959. He gained worldwide recognition for uncovering the My Lai massacre and it’s cover up during the Vietnam war. He had access to more information that had been released following Kennedys death-such as CIA information, files and interviews. His purposes were to reveal the darker aspects of JFK’s presidency as he thought that Kennedy’s private life had affected the nation/foreign policy. He felt he needed to write to allow America to reclaim their history. Therefore, with these purposes Hersh was also writing for the present and future generations to know more about the presidency of Kennedy (especially the negative parts).

The post-revisionist historians (are fairly recent 2002/2003) aim to provide a more balanced account of Kennedy’s life. Dallek was an academic historian who was a professor at the Boston university. There was more newly released sources (medical reports and soviet archives). He took a more traditional approach to writing history and believed that with the larger amount of evidence in the 21st century he could provide a more balanced account. He made judgements about the past but believed he could because of his academic qualifications. I believe that his interests are still slightly towards the present and future because one of his main aims is to provide a balanced account for future generations.

I ended up writing a lot! Probably because i'm procrastinating studying for English-but this is so much more fun/interesting! Thanks so much Susie!

[mitchello]

sorry for the triple post natmod/admins. not sorry i'm moderator for this section i can do what i want bitchessss

With trials fast approaching (some you for Monday!) I thought I'd post another, some more exam style questions for you guys to tackle

What constitutes a historian?

The definition of a historian, according to google is: "an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon."

The roles and methods of historians have changed drastically over time - the common factor that loosely binds them is an interpretation (however misguided) and portrayal (also however misguided  ) of the past. I think it is upon these base factors that a historian should be defined; the use of "expert" and "student" is contingent, and has already strayed from contemporary engagements with history (particularly due to its digitisation). Moreover, if we consider postmodernism, and the concept of inevitable relativity, what's to say that my interpretation is worth anything less than [I'M NOT CREATIVE ENOUGH TO MAKE UP A NAME]'s? We are both clouded by contextual prejudice, through which we have arrived at our own understanding - intrinsically variable due to EVERYONE'S uniquely personal context. If we are considering these unique interpretations to constitute history (this is my general historiographical stance), then we should not value or define historians based upon subjective ideas of expertise, where truth is as equally unreachable to them as everybody else (of course it would be preferable if the historian is well-taught in his/her field, but hopefully you get what i mean). So, yes I think that the proposed definition of historian is limited to a large extent, particularly amidst history's digitisation, and the awareness of relativity.
Here's some cool quotes that kinda align with my view (and probably won't be appreciated much elsewhere):
- Karl Popper There is no history, only histories.
- Samuel Butler Since God himself cannot change the past, he is obliged to tolerate the existence of historians.
- Michael Foucault I am well aware that I have not written anything but fictions... which is not to say they have nothing to do with truth.
(first post on the thread woooo)

[sudodds]

I think that the definition takes a bit of a public history stance-everybody can be a historian thing. I think the ‘expert or student’ is a bit conflicting.

Yeah I definitely think so too! I am so glad that you identified the "expert or student" aspect of the definition as well, as that was what sprung out to me when I first saw it, and was why I asked this question in the first place! For example, are you a "historian" as an Ancient history student, or are you just a student who studies Ancient history? Furthermore, what constitutes an expert? Someone who has a PHD? Who studied (I just realised you clarify what you perceive "expert" to mean in the next section aha - I should really start reading the whole argument before responding - but I just get too sucked in lmao).

In my idea an expert is someone who has been to university, read books, travelled to the places they are studying and have been involved in that particular field for years-like they are really knowledgeable. But a student could be anybody. By this definition, we could all be historians just because we are studying history. The definition doesn’t distinguish between the expert and a student. I was looking at a few other definitions and dictionary.com just describes a historian as “an expert in history”, or “a writer of history”, and leaves the student part out altogether.

Interesting distinction! And how interesting that other definitions exclude that student aspect and just focus on the expert part. "A writer of history" in particular is an interesting definition in that it excludes that "expert" part (I really feel as though the definition should include the word "professional" as well - do you agree?). For example, technically speaking I am a "writer" of history, in that for the ATAR Notes notes I had to write about WW1 and Pompeii and Herculaneum - however I would not consider myself a historian, or these texts to be historical works, as the was no aspect of active research involved to produce these "works". I learned a syllabus the year before, and wrote down what I know. In my opinion, the research aspect is quite important to being a historian as well, and taking a unique stance on an issue, rather than regurgitating a pre-prepared understanding of the subject matter, which is what we essentially do in the HSC (ie. we have to learn the stuff on the syllabus).

With that in mind, this would probably be how I would define a historian (please feel free to pick it a part - it is by no means perfect):

An individual who engages professionally in the historical process, through their unique research and production of an interpretation of the past.

Also, the definition doesn’t really say what a historian does, except that they study history. By this definition, anyone who studies the past is a historian-which I don’t think is really true in some circumstances (just because we are writing essays in Ancient, doesn’t make us a historian). However, I think that there are many different roles to a historian and that one definition might not be able to encompass every role. There are a lot of different ways a historian can produce their history and not just through academic books now (film, documentaries, museums, television, even video games can tell history. Last year my friend did a project in modern about the historical accuracy of WW1 video games.).

Oooooo nice points! Particularly that you don't have to "write" history to be a historian - which is something I'm not 100% sure I agree with you on! Though I do believe that documentaries in particular should be considered historical works, many of these documentaries were based on, or accompany an already existing literary work on the subject. For example, Niall Ferguson's 'Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World' was a historical, literary text, before it was a successful documentary series. I'm not sure if I would consider films (I'm assuming you mean fiction here) works of history. Though they may be historical, the creative liberties that are exerted when making a film compromise historical accuracy to such a degree that I believe it would be facetious to consider them to be historical works, even when they are based on historical texts. For example, the moving 'Dunkirk' is fantastic, like such a good film that I recommend everyone watch, that i believe DOES really capture the time in which it is depicting (one of the last surviving individuals on Dunkirk actually watched the film and remarked it's accuracy). However I don't believe it is a historical work as it is still fictional - the characters and events, though they may be dealing with a situation based in reality are still works of fiction. In terms of museums it is unlikely to be the work of one individual - though I am sure many historians had help with their research, it is still essentially their work, whereas a historical exhibition at a museum is the product of a team, many of whoms primary role is to buy/locate the artefacts that have already be dug up and analysed by archeologists and historians. Therefore to me, a museum curator doesn't have to be a historian. Video games are also another example whereby it is created by more than one person, many of whom are totally isolated from the historical process. The fictional element of video games is another aspect that prevents me from fully accepting it as a historical work to the extent whereby I would consider the creator a historian (however, I am super interested to hear what your friends conclusions were for their assessment task - sounds super interesting and highly relevant to this discussion!).

I think that the second part of the definition is slightly limiting as well. I don’t think that it would include the study of big history. I’m not too sure if it would include a conceptual study of history (such as Foucault’s work on the way punishment changed over time).

YES! This was another thing I was hoping someone could pick out. It definitely doesn't account for the newer forms of historical scholarship that have been emerging - Big History/Macrohistory is a great example, and was the one that immediately sprang to mind when I read this definition. A macrohistorical process doesn't specifically look at any period, geographical region, or social phenomenon - rather it looks at how many of these issues demonstrate larger thematic concerns that feature across contexts. The Foucault example is one that I did not think of, but is another fantastic example!

Ok, so I’m going to end up talking about JFK-which is my case study

Awesome! As this is not a case study that I am familiar with, it is great that we have someone around who can help others out with this topic, particularly as it is so popular!

So there are three main schools of history-the Camelot, revisionist and post revisionist schools. They all write after Kennedy’s death but the Camelot’s are the first to write.

The Camelot school is basically very pro-Kennedy/believes that most of Kennedys actions were good. Schlesinger was one of Kennedy’s close friends and was called a Kennedy loyalist for most of the campaign. Due to this, when writing he would overlook Kennedy’s mistakes and leave out some negative information. Also, due to his more personal nature with Kennedy he included personal recollections and insights as evidence when writing.

Interesting, so Schlesinger's history was most certainly impacted by his present context - love the reference to his methodology, that is a great inclusion within an essay. I've always found it interesting how individuals such as Schlesinger can be considered historians when they wrote about events which they have a close connection too. Like there are some people who consider Trotsky a historian on the Russian Revolution - an event in which he played a critical part within. To me, I assume with a historian their is a degree of separation between them and their focus.

The other Camelot historian is Sorenson, who was Kennedy’s presidential advisor, lawyer and writer-so also very close to him. He also used a lot of personal recollection and others who had worked with Kennedy. He was very close to Kennedy and admired Kennedy’s actions.  Therefore, the efforts of the Camelot historians were to preserve their views of Kennedy which were largely made up of friendship and admiration. Due to this their interests were also in the present and future as they wished to manipulate the way that Kennedy was seen to future generations.

Again, I think it's weird we consider people like this a historian on an issue that they have a close personal connection too. This is also very interesting, because I can totally see how these Camelot historians have shaped even my interpretation of Kennedy. I've always kinda considered him "one of the good ones" as far as American presidents go (and I am a cynic who thinks pretty much all government is corrupt, so this is quite a bit compliment aha). Like I've always considered Kennedy to be, at least morally, quite a decent president, who cared about the people and his position, more so than he was just interested in gaining power. However, now that I think about it, this is a very baseless interpretation, as I really haven't done much study into JFK - so I don't really know where I reached this conclusion, it's just kinda been something I was ingrained to believe I guess! How interesting

The revisionist school took the complete opposite viewpoints and were very critical of Kennedy’s actions as president.

of course Classic revisionists. That is something important to note though - one major criticism about the revisionist school is that it sometimes tries too hard to be alternative - in that it tries so badly to be different, and take a different viewpoint, that is sometimes neglects the hard evidence for the "mainstream view". I dunno how much that relates to Kennedy, but something interesting to keep in mind.

Hersh worked as a journalist for the city news Bureau in 1959. He gained worldwide recognition for uncovering the My Lai massacre and it’s cover up during the Vietnam war. He had access to more information that had been released following Kennedys death-such as CIA information, files and interviews. His purposes were to reveal the darker aspects of JFK’s presidency as he thought that Kennedy’s private life had affected the nation/foreign policy. He felt he needed to write to allow America to reclaim their history. Therefore, with these purposes Hersh was also writing for the present and future generations to know more about the presidency of Kennedy (especially the negative parts).

Great points! So by private life, do you mean stuff like his alleged (is it alleged or is it pretty much confirmed now?) affair with Marilyn Monroe? Also, what do you think that he meant be "allowing America to reclaim their history" - was this just a statement in relation to the fact that he believed they had been fed a false narrative, or is it something more significant (I'm not trying to make a smart point here aha - I genuinely have no idea as I didn't study this topic).

The post-revisionist historians (are fairly recent 2002/2003) aim to provide a more balanced account of Kennedy’s life. Dallek was an academic historian who was a professor at the Boston university. There was more newly released sources (medical reports and soviet archives). He took a more traditional approach to writing history and believed that with the larger amount of evidence in the 21st century he could provide a more balanced account. He made judgements about the past but believed he could because of his academic qualifications. I believe that his interests are still slightly towards the present and future because one of his main aims is to provide a balanced account for future generations.

Hmm, I always get very suspicious when historians claim to write a "balanced account" of history - do you think he was successful? To me, when someone says they want to write a "balanced account", I automatically assume that means they're sitting on the fence. Though yes, with history I do believe it is important to present both sides, in the end, I think a historian should be making a judgement - I mean that is why I am reading their work after all! I don't want to just read a list of facts, I want to read about how this individual has interpreted them.

I ended up writing a lot! Probably because i'm procrastinating studying for English-but this is so much more fun/interesting! Thanks so much Susie!

Yay fantastic! Sorry for fuelling your procrastination aha Some great arguments here Katie! Well done

Susie

[sudodds]

The roles and methods of historians have changed drastically over time - the common factor that loosely binds them is an interpretation (however misguided) and portrayal (also however misguided  ) of the past.

Interesting distinction, that for the most part I agree with However, using myself as a case study again, I have an interpretation of the Russian Revolution (whether informed by the syllabus or not), and portrayed it through my essays, some of which are published. Does that make me a historian? Personally I wouldn't consider myself a historian based upon that criteria alone.

I think it is upon these base factors that a historian should be defined; the use of "expert" and "student" is contingent, and has already strayed from contemporary engagements with history (particularly due to its digitisation).

Nice! Love the reference to contemporary engagements with history, and how it has changed over time - also loved how you have identified the digital world as a reason for this - something that relates to what I am studying at university right now. We are looking at this concept of "digital literacies" - Literacies essentially meaning forms of communication, and how we interact with said forms of communication. The new invention of the digital world has greatly expanded this concept of literacies, and I think this most definitely has implications for the historical discipline. I literally got to write an essay on memes as part of my assessment it was great (I used 'Salt Bae' as a source literally what is my degree), but memes in particular have become part of the historical discourse - pages like 'History in Memes' are exposing people to historical material and ideas at a mass level, prompting more and more people to engage with the historical process in at least some capacity. Though I personally wouldn't consider the creators of these memes historians, it is interesting to consider how the changing nature of communication affects those who contribute to the discipline (I personally call all individuals who engage in this process "Historical producers" instead of historian, due to this ambiguity). 

Moreover, if we consider postmodernism, and the concept of inevitable relativity, what's to say that my interpretation is worth anything less than [I'M NOT CREATIVE ENOUGH TO MAKE UP A NAME]'s? We are both clouded by contextual prejudice, through which we have arrived at our own understanding - intrinsically variable due to EVERYONE'S uniquely personal context. If we are considering these unique interpretations to constitute history (this is my general historiographical stance), then we should not value or define historians based upon subjective ideas of expertise, where truth is as equally unreachable to them as everybody else (of course it would be preferable if the historian is well-taught in his/her field, but hopefully you get what i mean). So, yes I think that the proposed definition of historian is limited to a large extent, particularly amidst history's digitisation, and the awareness of relativity.

This was pretty much exactly the argument that I put forward in my major work last year! Here is an extract from it, where I discuss this very issue! (the numbers are where I had footnotes, ceebs going through and deleting them aha ) Feel free to use any of the examples i discussed as case studies in your own essays! I used Bill O'Reilly frequently within my 'What is History' essays, and Bernard Porter within my 'Western Imperialism' essays.

Spoiler

“Interpretation,” as stated by Carr, “is the lifeblood of history30,” however this realisation presents a significant problem to the discipline, as it totally negates its supposed principal aim – the search for truth – which in turn completely shatters any shared understanding of what “History” actually is. Along with this, if an objective, undeniable “historical truth” is unattainable, and all historical texts are nothing more than imaginative, literary perspectives upon a historical issue, then all texts must be treated as valid, even though many, such as the works of Bill O’Reilly, are conducted with much less care and integrity.

While researching for his book Killing Reagan31 (2015), O’Reilly neglected to interview Reagan’s aides Ed Meese, Jim Baker or George Shultz, all of whom would have provided invaluable insight if O’Reilly’s claims that Reagan was often mentally unfit to serve as president after his attempted assassination were true32, which demonstrates a significant flaw in O’Reilly research methodologies. As George Will states, “[O’Reilly’s] is an interesting approach to writing history: Never talk to anyone with firsthand knowledge of your subject33." As all three aides provided an alternative perspective to O’Reilly, he chose to ignore them so as not to spoil his narrative. In contrast, other historians, such as Bernard Porter34, apply rigorous methods to formulate their analysis, utilising a wide variety of sources – many of which were rarely considered by other historians – to gain a better understanding of their subject matter35.

Although there are limitations to Porter’s methods, such as its Anglo-centric view and class focus, it is evident that Porter employs a much more rigorous and effective approach than O’Reilly. However, if we accept the view of many postmodernists, such as Jenkins36 and Michel Foucault37, that ALL historical texts are essentially fiction, then despite these obvious methodological flaws, O’Reilly’s account must be accepted as valid. His account is just as much an interpretation of Reagan as Porter’s is of the British Empire, despite the latter utilising more meticulous research methodologies, and therefore still conforms to the postmodernist definition of History. Thus, it is clear that the interpenetration of two conflicting interpretations of the historical craft – Empiricism and Postmodernism – has expanded the horizons of the discipline in regards to historiographical thinking, enabling historians to extend themselves further than the guidelines of Empiricism. However, by deviating away from these traditions, it is now unclear what is truly defined as History, and who truly deserves the title of historian, allowing O’Reilly, and many other questionable history producers such as David Irving38 and David Barton39, to remain valid, despite their obvious carelessness and disregard for the craft. Through the linguistic turn destroying the notion of objectivity, History, which had traditionally been seen as an (“essentially40”) objective discipline, is now considered the opposite, a subjective discipline totally dependent upon the perspectives and prejudices of their historians.

Here's some cool quotes that kinda align with my view (and probably won't be appreciated much elsewhere):
- Karl Popper There is no history, only histories.
- Samuel Butler Since God himself cannot change the past, he is obliged to tolerate the existence of historians.
- Michael Foucault I am well aware that I have not written anything but fictions... which is not to say they have nothing to do with truth.
(first post on the thread woooo)

Awesome quotes! I particularly like the Karl Popper one - short and sweet, but very clear and direct. All of these would be fantastic integrated throughout an essay! Besides Foucault I also hadn't heard of these historians/historiographers, so these quotes are also pretty unique, which can set your essay a part from the rest!

And yayyayaya! Hopefully first of many mitchello Sorry for the kinda late reply - just started uni again

Susie

[mitchello]

Interesting distinction, that for the most part I agree with However, using myself as a case study again, I have an interpretation of the Russian Revolution (whether informed by the syllabus or not), and portrayed it through my essays, some of which are published. Does that make me a historian? Personally I wouldn't consider myself a historian based upon that criteria alone.

Hmm, how would you define a historian? (Curious tone not accusatory, I just sat there and couldn't really land on an answer)

The new invention of the digital world has greatly expanded this concept of literacies, and I think this most definitely has implications for the historical discipline. I literally got to write an essay on memes as part of my assessment it was great (I used 'Salt Bae' as a source literally what is my degree)

Nooo waayy, hahaha that's awesome - if I were to write about memes I'd talk about the mitigation (don't know if thats the right word) of events, for example, transforming the death of Harambe into a massive gag/irony-fest, or even subjects as severe as 9-11, which many meme communities thrive off of.

This was pretty much exactly the argument that I put forward in my major work last year! Here is an extract from it, where I discuss this very issue! (the numbers are where I had footnotes, ceebs going through and deleting them aha ) Feel free to use any of the examples i discussed as case studies in your own essays! I used Bill O'Reilly frequently within my 'What is History' essays, and Bernard Porter within my 'Western Imperialism' essays.

MY GOD that reads well. Thanks, I'm partway through writing a 'What is History?' essay, Bill O'Riley works in very nicely.

And yayyayaya! Hopefully first of many mitchello Sorry for the kinda late reply - just started uni again

Susie

Thanks for replying at all, issallgood. Hopefully you get to write more on memes 

[sudodds]

Hmm, how would you define a historian? (Curious tone not accusatory, I just sat there and couldn't really land on an answer)

This is by no means a perfect definition, but I feel like this covers some of it (PLEASE feel free to pick it apart, I won't be offended )

An individual who engages professionally in the historical process, through their unique research and production of an interpretation of the past.

Nooo waayy, hahaha that's awesome - if I were to write about memes I'd talk about the mitigation (don't know if thats the right word) of events, for example, transforming the death of Harambe into a massive gag/irony-fest, or even subjects as severe as 9-11, which many meme communities thrive off of.

*casually write that down in my essay that is due in a few days*

Interested about your point in regards to the transformation of serious events, such as 9/11 into memes/jokes. Do you think this has to do with this idea of it being "too soon?", and that joking about serious events that happened well into the past, eg. the Plague is more acceptable? For example, if we were to watch an episode of Horrible Histories, things like the Plague, or maybe the assassination of a king may fuel or even be the but of jokes - whereas what could be considered "contemporary" equivalents such as Ebola or even more recently with Johnny Depp receiving a lot of condemnation for joking about assassinating Donald Trump, are abhorrent in mainstream society. Do you think this sentiment has an historiographical implications, beyond just jokes? Like do you think this idea of the "sacredness" of the present/recent past in comparison to ancient/middle periods is going to affect the way in which historians construct history? (I hope this makes sense lol)

MY GOD that reads well. Thanks, I'm partway through writing a 'What is History?' essay, Bill O'Riley works in very nicely.

Thank you! So glad it helps If you have any questions about Bill O'Reilly in particular let me know! He was my main case study throughout my major work, so I had to spend a lot of time researching him and his works. Happy to discuss if you have any questions or concerns

Thanks for replying at all, issallgood. Hopefully you get to write more on memes 

No worries! And yes, I hope so too

[mitchello]

This is by no means a perfect definition, but I feel like this covers some of it (PLEASE feel free to pick it apart, I won't be offended )

An individual who engages professionally in the historical process, through their unique research and production of an interpretation of the past.

Yeah, that's super good, its just the word 'professional' that gets me. Your first response made me realise why its necessary, but I just feel there are so many pathways open to present history without being a professional (for the points I raised earlier). But I don't know if some random can identify as a historian with just an essay, like you said. Maybe there should be a middle-ground, definition - maybe there is one - I'm not sure, just think 'professional' is too containing.

*casually write that down in my essay that is due in a few days*

Interested about your point in regards to the transformation of serious events, such as 9/11 into memes/jokes. Do you think this has to do with this idea of it being "too soon?", and that joking about serious events that happened well into the past, eg. the Plague is more acceptable? For example, if we were to watch an episode of Horrible Histories, things like the Plague, or maybe the assassination of a king may fuel or even be the but of jokes - whereas what could be considered "contemporary" equivalents such as Ebola or even more recently with Johnny Depp receiving a lot of condemnation for joking about assassinating Donald Trump, are abhorrent in mainstream society. Do you think this sentiment has an historiographical implications, beyond just jokes? Like do you think this idea of the "sacredness" of the present/recent past in comparison to ancient/middle periods is going to affect the way in which historians construct history? (I hope this makes sense lol)

Haha I feel so special. Yep I gotcha - I think it definitely has wider historiographical implications, not contained to the mistreatment of past events, but also past values (particularly religion). Often, this leads to a failure in considering the true nature and value of ancient events, such as the conversion of the Roman Empire (my major work): whilst writers at the time relished in the 'divinely inspired' reformation - attributed to their societal values - contemporary writers describe a sinister, political motivation, and often fail to replicate the religious sentiment of past societies. This leads history to become very one-sided and anachronistic - often quite subtly (to the writer at least): like, I laughed at that Pompeii "the floor is lava" meme, but would probably be shocked if a volcano in New Zealand or something went off and there were jokes about mass death and suffering. I didn't pay much attention to this prior to our discussion - great topic. So yeah, I think its impact is mainly found upon contemporary historians (less so academics, who are very reclusive with their opinions). Don't know how well I responded to the idea but its really interesting, and I understand what you mean

And I'll let you know if there's anything about Bill O'Reilly (spelt it wrong the first time wow, novice) in the near future. Thanks again

[mitchello]

Another issue I was thinking about today had to do with the whole same-sex marriage deal (this isn't a debate about its correctness or incorrectness, don't worry). I wanted to see the conservative side of the debate but got caught up on something the speaker said (not word for word): it will eventually lead to the push for polygamous and (currently) underage marriage. What I found interesting was how opposed she was to the emergence of new values due to their eccentricity from a current viewpoint, regardless of whether or not it is deemed societally acceptable in the future. These propositions may seem odd to us, but I'm sure that if I rocked up and told the Romans that Gladiatorial sparring was barbaric and to be later abolished, they would share a similar disdain. I kind of realised halfway through typing this that it wasn't as directly related to historiography as I thought, but I think it just goes to show how we act as great moralisers, despite being contained within our own epoch of subtly shifting values. Coming full circle, this relate to the points I mentioned above, often leading historians to impose their values on history where it is not relevant and detrimental to the strive for truth/objectivity.

[sudodds]

Yeah, that's super good, its just the word 'professional' that gets me. Your first response made me realise why its necessary, but I just feel there are so many pathways open to present history without being a professional (for the points I raised earlier). But I don't know if some random can identify as a historian with just an essay, like you said. Maybe there should be a middle-ground, definition - maybe there is one - I'm not sure, just think 'professional' is too containing.

Yeah actually I see what you mean. Like amateur historians exist - and tbh what do we define as a professional? Like normally we define that as someone who makes money, so a historian is anyone who engages with the discipline of history as a living - but if that were the case, any history tutor could be classified as a historian. I also think you then run into the problem of history only being "valuable" when someone commodifies it, which places historians such as Bill O'Reilly, who earns a considerable amount from his history books, higher than historians who may be considered to have more credibility, but earn less in comparison.

Maybe rather than strictly professional, it would be better to use a word like "consistent"? So "an individual who consistently, and often professionally engages in the historical process, through their unique research and production of an interpretation of the past." Do you think that is a bit more accurate?

Haha I feel so special. Yep I gotcha - I think it definitely has wider historiographical implications, not contained to the mistreatment of past events, but also past values (particularly religion).

Nice addition! Definitely agree with you there. I read something quite interesting today that relates well to this discussion upon the way in which we treat Ancient religions in comparison to those still in existence. Went something along the lines of;

If the followers are dead = myth
If the followers are alive = religion

Intending no disrespect to any religion, both ancient and contemporary, I do think it is very interesting that we look back at many of the ancient religions and remark at how "backwards" they were, and how crazy those people were for believing in such things, when many contemporary religions (or probably more accurately, religions that are still relevant to contemporary society, as many of these religions have been practiced since Ancient times as well) often believe in events and situations just as miraculous or unexplainable.

Often, this leads to a failure in considering the true nature and value of ancient events, such as the conversion of the Roman Empire (my major work): whilst writers at the time relished in the 'divinely inspired' reformation - attributed to their societal values - contemporary writers describe a sinister, political motivation, and often fail to replicate the religious sentiment of past societies. This leads history to become very one-sided and anachronistic - often quite subtly (to the writer at least): like, I laughed at that Pompeii "the floor is lava" meme, but would probably be shocked if a volcano in New Zealand or something went off and there were jokes about mass death and suffering.

Wow sounds super interesting! And 100% agree, I think it is very easy for the present to look back on the past and identify the negatives, as a means to demonstrate how we have "progressed" today (there is actually a whole form of history dedicated to this - teleological history!). And exactly! Other example that I can think of; though I would imagine pretty much everyone is universally in agreement that dressing up in a Hitler costume is not okay (and rightfully so!), I'm sure no one would bat an eyelid if someone walked in dressed as the Roman Emperor Nero who heavily and brutally persecuted Christians. Maybe its because there is a sense that Nero's actions do not have lasting repercussions today, in the same way that the Holocaust had, in the sense that there are still Holocaust survivors alive today, and Fascism as an ideology continues to rear it's ugly head in many corners of the globe?

I didn't pay much attention to this prior to our discussion - great topic. So yeah, I think its impact is mainly found upon contemporary historians (less so academics, who are very reclusive with their opinions). Don't know how well I responded to the idea but its really interesting, and I understand what you mean

And I'll let you know if there's anything about Bill O'Reilly (spelt it wrong the first time wow, novice) in the near future. Thanks again

Yayaya! That's what I'm hoping you guys get out of this thread - a new perspective on an issue, or even, as you suggest here, realising that this is an issue in the first place! So hopefully all of you will go into your Trial and HSC exams with a heap load of case studies and topics that you can confidently discuss

What do you mean by academics being reclusive with their opinions?

I think you responded very well to the question! Happy to have you around the debate thread, your ideas have been super insightful

Susie