Hey! ;D
Love this thread idea.
So here is my view on the objectivity of history, and whether the truth can be found...
So my view is a little mixed. I personally believe that it is possible for the historian to remove any bias and agendas that they might possess before embarking on research and sifting through the sources. I think it is possible to be 100% objective, in the sense that a historian can gather all the sources on a particular topic and simply explain what the sources say about a particular event without adding their own take or perspective.
Obviously sources are going to recount things in different lights (for example Plutarch's perception of the Spartan society is very patriotic and you can clearly tell that he is 'in love' with the society. Whereas Aristotle, from an Athenian perspective thinks that they are primitive and outright insane). To be objective the historian has to simply include both perspectives without including his/her view or altering what the records has said.
The problem is, how can we determine the 'truth'? Who's side presents the true account of events?I'd question whether even experiencing the event yourself would reveal an objective historical truth. Historical events are rarely ever isolated, and rarely ever involve one individual, and the truth that one individual experiences may be entirely different to the truth another individual experiences. For example, both Stalin and Roosevelt were both actively involved during the Cold War, but I'd hardly suggest that both of their interpretations of the event would be objective.
Can we trust Plutarch more than Aristotle?
This is where my view changes... I believe unless we travel faster than the speed of light and go back in time :D :D we will never know the answer. Think about it... We will never know what truly happened, the only way to determine the historical truth is to experience the event yourself.
Now obviously there are historical events where millions of people have experienced these events (eg: the holocaust). So in that sense I do believe that basic historical events can be 100% confirmed. For example, Rome was a major empire during antiquity conquering hundreds of nations, A man called Adolf Hitler ruled Germany after the first world war and was condemned with horrific human right abuses etc.For the most part I agree with this. I referred to these as lower order facts - the who what when where. For the most part (in some cases, particularly within antiquity this is not the case) these are not arguable (though holocaust deniers have attempted to much controversy!). However, I don't necessarily agree that just because lots of people experienced something means it is fact (unless you just mean the lower order fact that the event happened). Though human beings have the capability of individual thought, hive minds are an increasing problem, especially with the prevalence of propaganda and media manipulation/deception.
So i guess my view is a combination of the Rankean source gathering methodology, relativism, empiricism and a little bit of post-modernism (in the sense that the past cannot be 100% understood) :)Very interesting and thank you so much for sharing! Feel free to share some more anytime ;)
YES YES YES! You are officially my favourite human for posting on this thread :) Hopefully more will soon!Let the discussion begin! haha ;D
Ooooo very strong judgement - love it! Not sure I agree with ya, but love it none the less!
First of all, love how you have integrated what you have learnt in Ancient (you can 100% use those types of examples in your extension essays, I used Mary Beard all the time!).
Not sure I agree with your point that to be objective a historian has to simply include both perspectives, and I don't agree for a couple of reasons.
1) "both" denotes two sides of an argument, when in most cases there are wayyyyy more, way too many that a historian could actually include within their response. Plus in many cases certain "sides" of an argument have been lost. The saying "History is written by the winners" exists for a reason. Along with this for a very very long time the only perspectives we really ever saw/was written about/survived was those of "Great (most often white) Men." Ethnic minorities, women, lower classes - their voice was hardly ever heard of discussed.
2) Do historians ever just list perspectives? They may quote a source without altering its contents, but if that is all they do then that is more so, in my opinion, not history. As EH Carr states "interpretation is the lifeblood of history," so if they are to write history they are going to have to interject their interpretation some how, principally when they start to denote significance to various aspects of the source and their arguments.
3) Linguistics. Okay so just gonna preface that this shit is confusing, and I am by no means an expert, but the concept of linguistics in regards to historiography defs throws a massive wrench into this idea of historical objectivity. Basically not only is it impossible to write objectively (according to this argument) but it also impossible to read and absorb information objectively as well, due to the fact that not only is language ever evolving on a macro sense, but also on a micro sense everyone has a different perception of language. For example some may view the word "bitch" as highly offensive and derogatory, whereas others may view the word as empowing (i.e. "boss ass bitch"). Some view it as a term of endearment, while others view it as purely the term used to describe a female dog. So, if those four people read that word - yes they are reading the same five letters, but the significance of those letters are going to be widely different. Thus if language itself is subjective, then how can we obtain objectivity through language ya feel? (I completely understand if you don't feel - as I said this shit is confusing and I have probably not explained this very well!). If you want to read up on this defs recommend taking a look at Derrida and Foucault, and the idea of the shifting signifier!
I'd question whether even experiencing the event yourself would reveal an objective historical truth. Historical events are rarely ever isolated, and rarely ever involve one individual, and the truth that one individual experiences may be entirely different to the truth another individual experiences. For example, both Stalin and Roosevelt were both actively involved during the Cold War, but I'd hardly suggest that both of their interpretations of the event would be objective.
For the most part I agree with this. I referred to these as lower order facts - the who what when where. For the most part (in some cases, particularly within antiquity this is not the case) these are not arguable (though holocaust deniers have attempted to much controversy!). However, I don't necessarily agree that just because lots of people experienced something means it is fact (unless you just mean the lower order fact that the event happened). Though human beings have the capability of individual thought, hive minds are an increasing problem, especially with the prevalence of propaganda and media manipulation/deception.
Very interesting and thank you so much for sharing! Feel free to share some more anytime ;)
Let the discussion begin! haha ;DLet us hope!!
I almost forgot about those post-modernist historians and linguistics, my teacher (attempted) to explain this to us, and yeah I agree haha its really quite complicated. But yeah I have to agree with you, even if someone has experienced an event, it doesn't mean that their account of their event is necessarily the truth. I guess that the problem with history, human experience (or lets go even deeper) human consciousness is not even perfect. What we perceive may not even be the truth (now im sounding loopy)... The human experience is different for everyone, and consequently the way we record our experiences is different. Could i even say this in an exam or will the markers start getting concerned hahaah :D
Hey!
So I had a very interesting historiographically themed discussion today with a friend, and I'm super interested to hear other peoples thoughts - what are your opinions on historical fiction? Do you love it or hate it? Do you think that historical fiction is a form of history? Do you think that historical fiction can reveal anything about the past, or does it simply cloud the truth?
My opinion - can't stand it. Maybe its because I'm such a history buff that I really don't see the need to add fiction into the mix to make it interesting - history is fkn interesting already! The story of the Jonestown Massacre for example - you just can't make that kinda stuff up, and is (imo) way more interesting than a lot of fiction that I have read/watched. I always end up feeling really frustrated reading or watching historical fiction, I just can't ignore the parts that aren't true (though what is true lolollollollol #postmodernismmemes) - I could hardly get through the 'Bitter Harvest' trailer - Stalin with a British accent my word.
Would love to hear your thoughts! Do you have any historical fiction recommendations that you think might get me out of this rut?
Susie
Hey I don't know if I'm completely wrong her but this is my take on each of the questionsThis is extension history - we're all completely wrong ;)
Can history be objective:I love the distinction you have made between history and historiography! Those two are often unfortunately conflated :( Tbh history extension should really be renamed to "Historiography 101" or something along those lines!
I dont think so. When you have something so large and complex as “history” (aka the entire past) there is never one single objective value that you can pin on it. Also historiography (what History Extension is) is completely different to “history” because its the interaction of the past with PEOPLE.
People have so many different values and ideologies which influence the way they see and interact with the world, and historians are no different. Obviously there are some single “historical objective facts”, like that WW2 happened, Hitler was a bad guy, the Australian government was a bitch to Indigenous people; however there are so many different variables and inconsistencies within each topic that you cannot write a generalise statement and call it a historical fact.It's weird because though I totally agree with all the "historical objective facts" you have stated, however even so I don't think they can be 100% considered objective! I'd never attempt to argue that Hitler wasn't pure evil, or that the Australian government didn't do some horrific things to Indigenous Australians. In my opinion those things are as plain as the light of day - however a small minority of people disagree! Just take a look at some of the stuff that David Irving or Keith Windschuttle have written on the topics. I think what makes these arguably undeniable truths deniable is that they deal with issues of morality - which in and of itself is a subjective concept. A statement like "Hitler was evil" relies upon an understanding of what "evil" means, and though many of us share some common understanding upon this issue - eg. systematic torture and genocide = hella evil - there can still be some considerable differences between them. For example, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church may perceive homosexuality as "evil", whereas myself (a very left-leaning agnostic) definitely does not so. Thus the term evil - and others that denote a notion of morality eg. good, bad, heroic, etc. - are subjective, no matter wether or not a natural consensus has occured (eg. in regards to Hitler and the treatment of Indigenous Australians). In this way we are really delving into the concept of linguistics again and the idea that language means different things to different people. We could even take this a step further, and look at how limiting language is! For example, the term "bad" doesn't quantify how bad something is. I can say that Pol Pot was bad - but what does bad mean? Do I mean he was bad because he made some regretful/stupid/thoughtless choices, or do I mean bad because he was a malicious, evil person? Even in my explanations I am being subjective f**k! The term "bad" doesn't differentiate between the "bad-ness" level of murder, and the "bad-ness" of a headache - language is flawed.
Also, what might be an objective truth for someone, might be a completely different truth for someone else. The multitude of perspectives, and the way in which these perspectives interweave is a really important part of historiography, as we can never know every single thing about a historical event, person or idea (and the effects they/it has/had). Knowing many different stories is how historians can attempt to obtain what happened.Reminds me a lot of the David Hackett Fischer quote "a historian can only hope to know something about something" (might not be exact). An excellent point - the brevity of historical archives is a key issue that limits our ability to be objective. Though there are many ways in which historical archives are limited (eg. the lack of sources pertaining to various "non-dominant" groups in society like women, ethnic minorities, lgbtq, working classes etc.), even so a historian would have to spend their whole life (and a good chunk of their after life) reading and reading and reading sources is they wanted to see every perspective - and even then they wouldn't know everything because how they to know if one source is more credible than another, or if a key perspective was never actually written down?
However, Ii is important that objectivity is sought, as otherwise historical works could just completely make their own reference lists and write about utter nonsense without any knowledge or analysis at all (like Bill O’Reilly, hey Susie).Ayeeeeeee 8)
But ultimately the differing motives and ideologies of different historians will alter (either consciously or unconsciously) the history they produce. Even with historically accurate “primary sources”; the milieu of the creator of a text has deep roots within their works, as stated by historian Howard Zinn “… there is no such thing as a pure fact, innocent of interpretation. Behind every fact presented to the world - by a teacher, a writer, anyone - is a judgement.Ooooo are "primary sources" always (or ever!) historically accurate? In the same way that a historian is a deeply ideological and subjective being, so to are historical actors - the creators of these primary sources. Also love the quote! Zinn is a babe.
The respective socio-political contexts of authors, and the purpose they had throughout their work influences the way in which their conclusion was reached. So therefore, whilst it is important that historians strive for objectivity in their research methods and subsequent writings, there is no possible way in which they can completely be objective and escape their inherent interpretations.Often they'll even have a conclusion in there head as well before they even start researching! And this is going to drastically shape their analysis, as they purposely look for sources that specifically back up this pre-determined conclusion. Great points, thanks for sharing! Now onto your next argument!!
Opinions on historical fiction?Great point! Historical fiction defs probably makes history more digestible and accessible for someone that isn't crazy like me and will read a history book for fun! But as you say, this is definitely a double edged sword - more people are engaging with history, but they are engaging with fake history. This reminds me in particular of how disney has dealt with history, and how this has shaped peoples interpretations of historical peoples and events. Yes, Disney has probably had a significant influence in making Pocahontas an extremely well known historical figure. However, though she is now more well known, her actual story is clouded by the disney-fied "made for children" version.
Personally I don't hate historical fiction but I’m not a huge fan of it. I think that its important to get at least some historical ideas out into the general public, however, I do understand that the lack of research and authenticity in the pursuit of “art” can actually have more harm than good.
Historical fiction is mainly written by “popular” historians,Hmmm is popular history the same as historical fiction though? Eric Hobsbawm was definitely a popular historian - but I wouldn't say that he was writing historical fiction, in the same way that I wouldn't classify Markus Zusak (author of the Book Thief) a historian.
whom have an ulterior motive throughout their historical works to make money. (You cant really expect anything else however, because within our capitalistic world this is an essential aspect of being human being).8) PREACH SISTAH 8). Definitely a great point - there are also a heap load of other ulterior motives that I can think of as well - kudos, awards, accolades, to promote an ideology or political agenda, etc, etc.
Popular historians works are so “popular”, because traditional academic history-writing had a specialisation and technical discourse which was less accessible to the general reader. Through losing this technicality, the quality of the history produced is going to be a lot less, and so many people may have a particular idea of how something in history happened and it be completely false (as seen with lots of Indigenous Australian history). However, the question must be asked whether telling the public some aspect of history (badly) is better than telling the public no history at all.Yeah definitely agree with you here. I do think that a balance definitely has to be made. Also love the question you posed at the end - I feel like that could be an incredibly interesting Major Work topic!
I think that it is important that historical fiction continue as it will influence other people from other ranges of life (not just academics) to become interested in history and to give up their differing perspectives. If we didn't give history a voice, then how would these other perspectives be known at all? History is after all (in my opinion), and interweaving of multiple perspectives to form a single event.Wow? Have you perhaps changed my opinion on historical fiction? Potentially 8) I'm still not 100% down for it. I think the distinction has to be made between popular history and historical fiction - however you've definitely shown me a new perspective on the significance of historical fiction that I will have to take on board! I also love your summation of history at the end - nice and neat :)
What do you think of Horrible Histories? I never got into them when I was younger, but the girl who came first in Ancient History and Extension HIstory in my High School was INCREDIBLY into them in Primary School. She also read a lot of historical fiction, I think for that end it does a lot to spark interest and engage people in history, hopefully to then pursue it in a more academic way if the interest persists.
I read a few of the books from the My Story series and I was always left frustrated at the end - not knowing what was fiction and what was real. I remember the Titanic one specifically, it had a romance threaded through it (not Jack and Rose), which was light hearted and fun to read at like age 13, but I was really annoyed that I couldn't pull the fiction from the fact. So I guess your problem is that the fiction bits make you cringe, but for me, the problem is that I hate not knowing what actually happened and what didn't!
That is definitely one of my biggest qualms with historical fiction, and why I actively avoid it haha. There is some incredibly well researched and well written historical fiction out there, but just knowing that there is fiction and its not explictly stated that it is fiction makes me unnerved. I want to be clear on the facts (if they even exist).This is the exact same reason why I hate watching horror films that are "based on true events." Was the true event that a demon lived in their attack and murdered the whole family? Or was the true event that they moved to a new house and sometimes the stairs creaked a bit? This is important information that I need to know if I'm going to sleep at night.
On the topic of Titanic though, I went to the Titanic exhibition recently and it was very interesting! The exhibition itself wasn't particularly great tbh, but it appears that as a piece of historical fiction the film Titanic is not actually that bad in terms of its accuracy. Though of course the narrative is just that, a narrative, certain characters (even ones that were only shown for a split second) were actually real people, or at the very least some of the things that the fictional characters did (for example when Rose's fiancé forces his way onto one of the life boats) did actually happen!
The historiographical implications of re-colouring photos are really interesting... and of course... you can't NOT talk about postmodernism ;)Was hoping someone would bring this up ;)
For my major work I looked into the philosophical theories of R.G. Collingwood, who argued that history itself is inevitably a recreation of the past within the historian's mind since we can't ever recover history in its entirety. If this is the case, and the full/truthful 'image' of the past can't ever be recaptured anyway, does it really matter if the presentation of photos as historical sources involves some adjustments that compromise its complete accuracy? Since history itself is more the essence of the past rather than a perfect, fully-comprehendible, all-encompassing recreation of it, inaccuracies, especially inconsequential ones like misrepresentations of e.g. the colour of one of JFK's ties, should be permitted and even anticipated.Interesting and I defs agree with your assessment! I think if a historian really cares about being 100% historically accurate and objective, then they will never actually write history because that is just an impossible task! Even Von Ranke - the Empiricist king - agreed with this, his famous quote suggesting that he would write history "as it actually was" being more than likely a mistranslation of "as it essentially was" - which are of course very different assertions. As Hackett Fisher says, a historian can only know "something about something" - not only because, yes, obviously bias is a thing that dilutes literally everything including both the historian and the sources, but also because some things are just literally not accessible! It is impossible to know, for example, the exact shade of blue the sky was on the 1st of March 1995 - even if a colour photograph was taken, because not even digital cameras, no matter how sophisticated, can create an image in the same resolution as real life. Going further, we all perceive visuals and colour differently due to variations in our sight abilities which further creates complications in forming an objective image (definitely falling down the postmodernist rabbit hole here so I'm gonna attempt to climb out now...).
And even so, I think a more pressing issue isn't how the picture itself is presented but what's missing from it. Even if you manage to have a completely accurate representation of colour in a picture, that doesn't necessarily guarantee it's reliability/objectivity, because the photographer is still being selective about what they capture - about what history they want to portray. As 'real' or irreproachable physical photographs may seem as historical evidence, they can still be completely biased. An example of this would be photographing the 11/10 quality of the German trenches in WWI and perpetrating this as propaganda to make it seem like every single German soldier was subject to the same suitable conditions, when they reeeeally weren't.Fantastic point! Seems a bit silly to be getting so caught up in the colour of the photograph, when there is probably so much more within it that is completely contrived haha. Question: Do you think that video is more reliable than photography? Obviously a video can still be subjective through script (if there is one), camera angles and editing (as a film student I know that all too well haha ;) ), however do you think that running footage is going to present a more accurate depiction of the past as it isn't stagnant like a photograph, or do you think that there are any other historiographical issues that make video worse?
The issue of colour, to me at least, is a little trivial since I can't think of any circumstances where the inaccurate colourisation of a photo would completely compromise historicity (maybe you can suggest one cause I really can't come up with anything), whereas inaccuracies in paintings or drawings are much easier to make and could be much more significant.Hmmm not sure if I agree with you there! Colour is often very symbolic, thus I think mixing it up could definitely cause some pretty drastic issues. Take the 'Nazi Triangles' for example. During the Holocaust, the Nazi's used a coloured triangle system to categorise their prisoners according to which social or cultural group they belonged to. Here is a diagram below which goes into more specifics.
If it really can enhance someone's sense of engagement with the past, I can't see much being wrong with colouring the sky a light blue when it was actually a little more grey. Hope this makes sense haha :)Defs makes sense, and overall I agree with your interpretation, thanks so much for sharing! Was a super interesting read :D Hope to see you back here some time ;D
Hey, This is a really cool idea. Not sure if I’m right but this is what I think:So glad you think so!! And well, as a history extension student you should know that "right" is a very subjective term ;) Never doubt your opinion - seek to validate it further, and assess new evidence (as you are doing in this thread!) - but never doubt it :)
Can history be objective?I'd go as far as to suggest that ALL sources from the past are "biased" (though just a technical thing - I suggest being more specific about 'bias' in your essays - ideological adherence, personal prejudice, political agenda works better!). As Keith Jenkins states, as humans we are essentially "ideologically positioned workers" - everything that we do is inherently motivated by ideology. If you want to go into this further, I suggest watching this short clip from Slavoj Zizek's 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology' (I'd actually recommend watching the whole thing! Such a mindfuck, but sooooo interesting). He goes into how our whole perception of reality is impacted by ideology, which in turn will have a critical impact upon not only the way historical actors have produced sources, but historical producers have produced history!
I believe that history can never be 100% objective as historians are always affected by their personal beliefs, values and opinions on issues. Sources that were made in the past can often be biased and as historians can only write based on past sources (especially when writing about ancient history), they can never be truly objective.
Most historians begin their research with a question in mind, and therefore when choosing their sources, they are influenced by this prior question and pre-imagined hypothesis.DEFINITELY! If you haven't read EH Carr's 'What is History?' I suggest giving it a go - super short read, but sooooo informative (and a great source to incorporate in the Section I of the exam!) - he talks about this within the first chapter I think, with his fishing analogy :) Essentially what he is saying is that historians choose a particular area (historical period), then a lake within that area (their focus). They then hop into a boat (their investigation), travelling towards a particular spot in the lake (their hypothesis). They get out their rod, and put a particular bait on the end of it (research methodology), catching and eating particular fish (sources that suit their hypothesis), which for the most part ignoring the undesirable ones.
The Ancient Historians didn’t even know what source analysis was, and couldn’t be objective as it wasn’t even thought about yet.That's a bit harsh! And I'm not sure I agree with you here (though I'm sure that is a very common misconception!). The Ancient Historians definitely knew the importance of sources, and how critical they were to investigation. Herodotus is the "father of history" for a reason! Yeah, he sometimes made up sources (like when he suggested that he spoke to a giant...), HOWEVER the fact that he felt the need to make up sources suggests that he understood how critical sources were to the study of history - they are what differentiates history from historical fiction in many ways. One of his most famous quotes even alludes to this: "I am bound to tell what I am told, but not in every case to believe it."
Throughout history, most historians have strived for objectivity but even Von Ranke (the father of scientific history) was subjective as he aimed to find the signature of God through history. Macaulay’s teleological approach to history wished to show how English history was progressing and improving. Therefore, he was influenced by these ideas while conducting his research and writing his works. The school of Public history is subjective as they are often funded by the government and provide views in the context of current political debates.Agree with everything here :) Interesting fact though - Despite the fact that Von Ranke has basically become the most famous empiricist (and don't get me wrong - he was an empiricist), his most famous quote, that he was writing about the past "as it actually was", is most likely a mistranslation of German! It is believed that he actually said "as it essentially was" - which is VERY different. You could also add that public history is also often written for entertainment, and to "make money" - thus are more likely to present a more dramatic account of events (re. the entire work of Bill O'Reilly, who himself even admits that if you write exciting history you can sell a lot of copies and have movies made about them - as he has for many of his historical works).
Post Modernists believe that there is no real truth and rarely use footnotes.This isn't just a fault of postmodernists (and not even all postmodernist!) - A lot of popular/public historians do the same thing. Some publishing houses consider too many footnotes to distract the reader, which puts off consumers from purchasing the book, so historians are instructed to limit their use of them, or only use them for menial background detail (for example Bill O'Reilly uses footnotes to tell us the actual hair colour of Ronald Reagan... fun fact my 2500 word major work had more footnotes than an entire Bill O'Reilly work). I also think that you need to remember that there aren't many postmodernist historians, more so postmodernist historiographers. Postmodernists typically don't write history (because as you said, they don't believe that there is one, accurate portrayal), but more so analyse and criticise the constructions of other histories. Thus as their work is more so theory based, a theory they themselves have developed, it is understandable that they have comparatively less sources.
One historian (could have been schama-not sure) that we studied in class mixed narratives with his histories as he believed that if there was no truth it didn’t really matter if everything was historically correct.Interesting point! And yes that was Simon Schama who did that :) Definitely that would impact upon the factual reliability, however do you think the fact that he disclosed this makes a difference?
Obviously this would be greatly subjective. Therefore, I don’t really believe that history can ever be objective, no matter how hard a historian may try.Overall I agree with this, and you make some awesome points :) Well done! Now onto the next topic :D
My Opinion on Historical FictionIt is a great book :) Though I'm still not a fan of historical fiction as a genre, I can definitely appreciate the Book Thief :) (also awesome related text idea btw ;) ). Also a lot of really interesting historiographical issues and concerns with the history of the Holocaust! Sounds like a super interesting major work topic! Super interested to hear more about your thesis - did you have a look at David Irving and the whole concept of 'Holocaust Denial'? Really demonstrates the slippery slope of postmodernism!
I actually used to really love it but I haven’t read a lot in ages. I’m doing the Book Thief as one of my related texts for English and focussing on the Holocaust for my history extension major, and I really like the book.
I also love the book War Horse by Micheal Morpurgo which is based off WW1 and has a movie adaptation. I read the YA book Gemina last holidays and it mentioned the battle of Thermopylae which was really cool when I got to class the next term and we were talking about it in Sparta.Interesting! I haven't watched/read either of those (however I have heard of War Horse - that was the one with Tom Hiddleston right? Wasn't the horse nominated for an Oscar?). I will admit, the one thing that I do like about historical fiction is that if you have already studied the period it becomes so much more immersive as a narrative (but then that one blatant historical inaccuracy pops up and then I'm just pissed off hahaha)
However, I could understand how it could be really annoying if it isn’t historically accurate or you couldn’t tell between fact and fiction. I found that especially when I was younger, this was a lot easier for me to read about history then reading a long, boring history book.I think I maybe mentioned this earlier in response to this, but I'll say it again anyway - I can definitely appreciate the merit of historical fiction in that it "opens" up the world of history to people in a more accessible format! However I just think that sometimes, it can do more harm than good as it opens them up to a false narrative. Disney's 'Pocahontas' is a good example of this - kids are being fed a highly romanticised version of events, which clouds the significance of the events and personalities themselves (plus just the portrayal of a romance between Pocahontas and her alleged rapist is pretty gross... As Robert Eaglestaff, principal of the American Indian Heritage School in Seattle states: ""It's like trying to teach about the Holocaust and putting in a nice story about Anne Frank falling in love with a German officer ... You can't pretend everything was O.K. between the Germans and the Jews.")
I think I might do the other two questions later. Thanks, Susie. This will actually be really good help for my trials coming up.AWESOME! Looking forward to it Katie :D Thanks so much for sharing your opinions so far, can't wait to hear the rest of them ;)
I'd go as far as to suggest that ALL sources from the past are "biased" (though just a technical thing - I suggest being more specific about 'bias' in your essays - ideological adherence, personal prejudice, political agenda works better!). As Keith Jenkins states, as humans we are essentially "ideologically positioned workers" - everything that we do is inherently motivated by ideology. If you want to go into this further, I suggest watching this short clip from Slavoj Zizek's 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology' (I'd actually recommend watching the whole thing! Such a mindfuck, but sooooo interesting). He goes into how our whole perception of reality is impacted by ideology, which in turn will have a critical impact upon not only the way historical actors have produced sources, but historical producers have produced history!I just watched the video it was so interesting and my mind is blown. I might try to watch the whole thing in the holidays. :)
Furthermore, I think another aspect that is important to consider is that not only are the sources that we have inherently ideological, personal and political, but for a huge amount of history - white, male and privileged! Not even commenting on todays socio-cultural climate in regards to class, race and gender, it is undeniable that throughout history rich, white men were all that anyone seemed to care about, and by extension wrote about. Information on the lower classes, women or other minorities just wasn't considered important enough to record - and thus history "forgot" about them!I completely forgot about this. We were commenting in History Extension the other day about how the post modernists (and indeed most of our What is History historians) and all our Kennedy historians are all white, middle aged men.
We studied EH Carr for the What is History? section, towards the start of the year. I might try and read it again though to refresh it. Your description of the fishmonger analogy is really good. Thanks :)
DEFINITELY! If you haven't read EH Carr's 'What is History?' I suggest giving it a go - super short read, but sooooo informative (and a great source to incorporate in the Section I of the exam!) - he talks about this within the first chapter I think, with his fishing analogy :) Essentially what he is saying is that historians choose a particular area (historical period), then a lake within that area (their focus). They then hop into a boat (their investigation), travelling towards a particular spot in the lake (their hypothesis). They get out their rod, and put a particular bait on the end of it (research methodology), catching and eating particular fish (sources that suit their hypothesis), which for the most part ignoring the undesirable ones.
That's a bit harsh! And I'm not sure I agree with you here (though I'm sure that is a very common misconception!). The Ancient Historians definitely knew the importance of sources, and how critical they were to investigation. Herodotus is the "father of history" for a reason! Yeah, he sometimes made up sources (like when he suggested that he spoke to a giant...), HOWEVER the fact that he felt the need to make up sources suggests that he understood how critical sources were to the study of history - they are what differentiates history from historical fiction in many ways. One of his most famous quotes even alludes to this: "I am bound to tell what I am told, but not in every case to believe it."Yeah, I agree with you on this. I just always thought that they didn't know how to be objective, however if the historian understand how critical sources were, referenced them and assessed them, they are trying to be objective. Do you believe Suetonius was trying to be objective, as my class has always been told to be careful of his bias. My Ancient teacher loves Mary Beard and I haven't heard of this quote before, but it might be useful for an essay.
If you look at the work of Herodotus (and many other Ancient historians), they reference sources throughout their works. For example, Cassius Dio references the now long lost diaries of Agrippina the Younger in his account of her life. Some ancient historians even assess the reliability of their sources! Both Tacitus and Suetonius (though the latter is not technically a historian - rather a biographer) are examples of this.
Overall I think I support Mary Beard's point of view - "It is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors."
Agree with everything here :) Interesting fact though - Despite the fact that Von Ranke has basically become the most famous empiricist (and don't get me wrong - he was an empiricist), his most famous quote, that he was writing about the past "as it actually was", is most likely a mistranslation of German! It is believed that he actually said "as it essentially was" - which is VERY different. You could also add that public history is also often written for entertainment, and to "make money" - thus are more likely to present a more dramatic account of events (re. the entire work of Bill O'Reilly, who himself even admits that if you write exciting history you can sell a lot of copies and have movies made about them - as he has for many of his historical works).Really interesting ideas. I didn't know that some historians were told to limit their footnotes. . How many footnotes did you have-I ended up with 23. I didn't really realise that the Post Modernists were mainly historiographers but it makes sense.
This isn't just a fault of postmodernists (and not even all postmodernist!) - A lot of popular/public historians do the same thing. Some publishing houses consider too many footnotes to distract the reader, which puts off consumers from purchasing the book, so historians are instructed to limit their use of them, or only use them for menial background detail (for example Bill O'Reilly uses footnotes to tell us the actual hair colour of Ronald Reagan... fun fact my 2500 word major work had more footnotes than an entire Bill O'Reilly work). I also think that you need to remember that there aren't many postmodernist historians, more so postmodernist historiographers. Postmodernists typically don't write history (because as you said, they don't believe that there is one, accurate portrayal), but more so analyse and criticise the constructions of other histories. Thus as their work is more so theory based, a theory they themselves have developed, it is understandable that they have comparatively less sources.
Interesting point! And yes that was Simon Schama who did that :) Definitely that would impact upon the factual reliability, however do you think the fact that he disclosed this makes a difference?Yeah,the fact that he told people that there were narratives mixed in, would have made a huge difference as his audience wouldn't believe it all to be fact.
It is a great book :) Though I'm still not a fan of historical fiction as a genre, I can definitely appreciate the Book Thief :) (also awesome related text idea btw ;) ). Also a lot of really interesting historiographical issues and concerns with the history of the Holocaust! Sounds like a super interesting major work topic! Super interested to hear more about your thesis - did you have a look at David Irving and the whole concept of 'Holocaust Denial'? Really demonstrates the slippery slope of postmodernism!It's such a good related text for English AOS. No, I didn't actually do this question. I ended up changing my question about three times. Initially it was “Assess how perspectives of the Jewish people of the Holocaust have changed over time through media representations?” (hence the Book Thief) -but obviously it was way too broad. I ended up doing "Assess the Goldhagen v. Browning debate, focussing on why the German people of police battalion 101 were involved in the murder of the Jewish people." (I focussed on the historians context, methodology and how this affected their interpretations. It was really interesting :) )
Interesting! I haven't watched/read either of those (however I have heard of War Horse - that was the one with Tom Hiddleston right? Wasn't the horse nominated for an Oscar?). I will admit, the one thing that I do like about historical fiction is that if you have already studied the period it becomes so much more immersive as a narrative (but then that one blatant historical inaccuracy pops up and then I'm just pissed off hahaha)Yeah, it did have Tom Hiddleston. I don't know if the horse was nominated for an oscar. Would be cool if it was. I haven't read a lot of historical fiction since starting history extension so I don't really know how much it would affect me now. It's great once you have actually studied the history behind it and then read the books.
However I just think that sometimes, it can do more harm than good as it opens them up to a false narrative. Disney's 'Pocahontas' is a good example of this - kids are being fed a highly romanticised version of events, which clouds the significance of the events and personalities themselves (plus just the portrayal of a romance between Pocahontas and her alleged rapist is pretty gross... As Robert Eaglestaff, principal of the American Indian Heritage School in Seattle states: ""It's like trying to teach about the Holocaust and putting in a nice story about Anne Frank falling in love with a German officer ... You can't pretend everything was O.K. between the Germans and the Jews.")I've never seen Pocahontas before (one of the only Disney movies I haven't seen). But a romance between her and a rapist is gross/wrong. I understand the Holocaust example as well. It's like, Historical fiction can be really good sometimes but it needs barriers and to be fairly accurate to the societies that it is portraying. You just can't have just have false narratives like that.
AWESOME! Looking forward to it Katie :D Thanks so much for sharing your opinions so far, can't wait to hear the rest of them ;)I'll do the other's later on in the week. Thanks Susie :D, I'm also going to your Ancient lecture in the holidays so i'm really excited about that!! :) :)
I just watched the video it was so interesting and my mind is blown. I might try to watch the whole thing in the holidays. :)So glad you found it interesting! Zizek is a beast - also a great source to use for your essays as well :) Very very interesting stuff. If you have a watch in the holidays make sure to check back here if you have any questions or opinions that you'd like to discuss!
I completely forgot about this. We were commenting in History Extension the other day about how the post modernists (and indeed most of our What is History historians) and all our Kennedy historians are all white, middle aged men.There's actually a name for this type of history, known as "Big Men History" or the "Top Down Approach"! It's basically the antithesis of social history and the bottom up approach :)
We studied EH Carr for the What is History? section, towards the start of the year. I might try and read it again though to refresh it. Your description of the fishmonger analogy is really good. Thanks :)'What is History?' really is the quintessential history extension text in my opinion - Carr is an authority on historiography. That book has absolutely everything you need - highly recommended :) And no worries!
Yeah, I agree with you on this. I just always thought that they didn't know how to be objective, however if the historian understand how critical sources were, referenced them and assessed them, they are trying to be objective. Do you believe Suetonius was trying to be objective, as my class has always been told to be careful of his bias. My Ancient teacher loves Mary Beard and I haven't heard of this quote before, but it might be useful for an essay.See I'm not really sure anyone knows how to be objective - that's the thing. As you said before, even Von Ranke, and those who were writing after the dawn of the more "scientific" approach to history, weren't totally objective. However, I do think that in essence a lot of (though not all) historians strive towards objectivity - and that includes the Ancient Historians. Will they ever reach it - no, but I don't think that the Ancient Historians saw themselves as writing fiction, and thus believed that they were at the very least writing some form of the truth.
Really interesting ideas. I didn't know that some historians were told to limit their footnotes. . How many footnotes did you have-I ended up with 23. I didn't really realise that the Post Modernists were mainly historiographers but it makes sense.I had around 85 footnotes (don't be alarmed though at the drastic difference, the girl that came 1st in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize had about 30 so going crazy like me is defs not a requirement to do well :) ). I was really meticulous about my referencing, because the topic I was doing was one that was hardly ever discussed, which meant I couldn't rely on a markers previous knowledge of the issue - thus I needed to back up pretty much every point that I made. Plus I used footnotes to clarify things such as definitions, etc. etc. :)
Yeah,the fact that he told people that there were narratives mixed in, would have made a huge difference as his audience wouldn't believe it all to be fact.I agree :) I think if a historian doesn't claim objectivity, and acknowledges their failings then it is acceptable. When historians start to suggest that they know the truth completely I get really skeptical.
It's such a good related text for English AOS. No, I didn't actually do this question. I ended up changing my question about three times. Initially it was “Assess how perspectives of the Jewish people of the Holocaust have changed over time through media representations?” (hence the Book Thief) -but obviously it was way too broad. I ended up doing "Assess the Goldhagen v. Browning debate, focussing on why the German people of police battalion 101 were involved in the murder of the Jewish people." (I focussed on the historians context, methodology and how this affected their interpretations. It was really interesting :) )Oooo sounds interesting! I've never heard of the Goldhagen v. Browning debate :) Would love to here more about your interpretation :)
Yeah, it did have Tom Hiddleston. I don't know if the horse was nominated for an oscar. Would be cool if it was. I haven't read a lot of historical fiction since starting history extension so I don't really know how much it would affect me now. It's great once you have actually studied the history behind it and then read the books.Looking into it I think that was just a meme hahaha - I think people suggested he be nominated, but the academy never officially recognised him :'( Sad times we're living in, go back to Ancient times and horses could become consul, and now their talent goes unrecognised >:(.
I've never seen Pocahontas before (one of the only Disney movies I haven't seen). But a romance between her and a rapist is gross/wrong. I understand the Holocaust example as well. It's like, Historical fiction can be really good sometimes but it needs barriers and to be fairly accurate to the societies that it is portraying. You just can't have just have false narratives like that.I really liked the movie when I was younger, but studying it in history extension (originally my major work was on the disneyfication of history) definitely made me see a new side of it. It's funny, because I'm someone who wants to work in combining the mediums of history and film, either through docos or educational content - I wonder if I will end up becoming what I detest ;)
I'll do the other's later on in the week. Thanks Susie :D, I'm also going to your Ancient lecture in the holidays so i'm really excited about that!! :) :)Sounds great! Make sure to come say hi in one of the breaks! Can't wait to meet everyone ;D
Just watched another super funny video, this time from TV show 'Adam Ruins Everything'! (started on College Humour by Adam Conover :))) The clip is titled How Prostitutes Settled the Wild West, and basically goes into the hidden history of 'Wild West' America, and the really significant contributions made by women (particularly in Wyoming) that no one seems to know about!The reason the women of the Wild West have been neglected is because history writers would have excluded female voices - either through choosing sources written by men instead of sources written by the prostitutes or brothel owners, or because of a lack of available evidence showing womens role.
When we think 'Wild West', most of us probably picture a white, male, gun toting cowboy. However, according to this clip (which references a bunch of sources mind!), the towns and settlements would not have even come to be without the lucrative, buisness savy minds of many women, who utilised prostitution to achieve massive wealth, status and power within the communities! Many towns were built around these women-owned, women-ran brothels!
I found this really interesting, and I think it relates very keenly to a topic that has been mentioned a few times throughout this thread - the conflict between Great Men/Top-down History, and Social/Grassroots/Bottom-up History! It also can be linked quite clearly to the concept of Gender History, and Feminist History (because they are actually different things - if anyone can give me the reason why they get extra brownie points ;) )
So my question is - why do you think that the history of the women of the Wild West has been neglected? Do you think the history of women (and other minority groups) has been neglected period?
Can't wait to hear what you guys come up with (I did part of my major work on this historiographical idea ;) )!
Susie
The reason the women of the Wild West have been neglected is because history writers would have excluded female voices - either through choosing sources written by men instead of sources written by the prostitutes or brothel owners, or because of a lack of available evidence showing womens role.Do you think that this is an issue of active sexism? Do you think that the historians of the time were actively attempting to cover up the experiences and contributions of women, or do you think that it was more of just an example of neglect? Either way there are definitely feminist implications, however I think basically what I am wondering is whether or not you think that this was deliberate censorship, or just that in our patriarchal society historians either a) didn't really care about the role of women in comparison to the role of men, b) understood that the public didn't really care about the role of women, and thus wrote their histories to suit public demand? Hope I explained this correctly haha.
Another reason why the history of women has been excluded is due to the nature of public history and discourse. The majority of the populace know about the Wild West through films like The Magnificent Seven (1960 classic or 2016 remake) or A Fistful of Dollars (1964) which portray female characters as damsels of distress and focus on the ‘cowboys’ instead of the lives of the women.REALLY interesting and valid point! I also love how you have provided examples, these would be great to incorporate within your essays! I definitely agree that the role of popular media and entertainment can have a significant impact upon the way in which we perceive history. As mentioned earlier, Disney's 'Pocahontas' has pretty much rewritten history, as have many other historical fiction films such as 'Titanic' and 'Schindler's List' - the public are more likely to consume this form of media, than read a big wordy history book, thus cinema and fiction often have a more powerful and authoritative role in history than many historians!
Interestingly, while the video only focuses on how the women have been excluded from history, people of colour have also been neglected in the history of the Wild West. This article in the Atlantic (available:https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/how-the-west-was-lost/502850/) discusses the inaccuracy of Hollywood only representing white male figures as this is an “exclusionary account of American history “as people of colour were not only present at the inception of the Wild West—but they were also its primary architects.”Very very interesting point! Women's voices definitely aren't the only ones being excluded, other groups in society, such as, as you said, African Americans, but also Native Americans, Asians, Latinx, working classes, LGBTQ, etc. have also been unfairly under-represented throughout history. Thankfully, social history as a discipline has allowed for an expansion in our understanding of these groups, but as you mentioned earlier, a lack of sources makes a complete and thorough analysis of their role really difficult. No one bothered to record African American achievements throughout history, and thus their achievements and contributions have gone un noticed.
This isn't paragraphs -obviously- just my overall arguments summed up in three dot-points.Awesome judgement! Nice and nuanced - interesting addition that it is "no longer" true. So you think it was true to begin with?
Question: To what extent do historians 'own' history? (2011)
Statement: Whilst Historians significantly influence and thereby impact the a wide range of histories through their interpretation and construction, the notion that history is owned by historians is no longer true.
- In today’s society, history can be written by the wider public (you don’t have to be a “historian” to research and write history)Definitely a great point! In previous generations, the qualification to be a historian was a PHD, something only a few small, select group of individuals possess (or have the ability to possess in the future - university wasn't the most accessible to various groups of individuals - link to social history perhaps ;) ).Furthermore, we didn't always have the internet, and "history books" and sources were also fairly inaccessible. Either you had to be a member of the university to access the texts, or pretty wealthy (because academic history books are fck'n expensive!) Though many still consider this the baseline, this is definitely a dying belief. Public history and popular history has definitely broadened the Discipline in unprecedented ways. History books are now regularly consumed by "ordinary" individuals, and these books are by nature of the way in which they were written more accessible (potentially more narrative, less bulky etc. etc.). Along with this, they aren't just consuming history books, but other forms of media, particularly documentaries are becoming more and more prevalent!
- Historians aren’t the only ones who are able to provide “historical truth” there are many ways of representing historical truth e.g. showing history through film and mediaMy first point there - is historical truth actually a thing? Is historical truth objective, or is it subjective? This is an important distinction, because in my opinion, film by its very nature is not truth, just a representation of a supposed truth. The reason I think this is because it is scripted - we have no idea what individuals actually said, how they said it, what they meant by it etc. etc. Sets and costumes can never be 100% accurate, at least in my opinion. So rather than film and media allowing more ways to provide historical truth, maybe they broaden the discipline in other ways? Historians don't own history, because media, through creating popular discourse, owns history. Think about it, more people are watching the movie 'Titanic' than reading about the actual event, thus our understanding of the event is shaped by the film, creating a new "history" that dominates that created by historians!
- History is always continuously changing as society changes e.g. in earlier time, there was that concept that history is looking at the ‘great man’ view but as society changes the concept of what ‘history’ should be changes too. Now, there is the idea of social history which tries to extend its research upon all members of the society, and concentrating on the social, economic and cultural institutionsLOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE!!!!! Part of my major work looked at this, definitely a really strong argument to make! Don't have much to add here, you've hit the nail on the head with this one :) If you have any specific questions about this issue though let me know because I'd love to have a discussion with you about it :D
Give me harsh feedback because I don’t feel like my arguments make any sense!! And, what historians/sources should I look for? If I go with these arguments, that is. Any ideas?I was always told to avoid Marnie Hughes-Warrington as a source, as a lot of her works are more so textbooks than works of historiography. What I'd be looking at is contemporary examples of films - Schindler's List would be a good example, as Spielburg made a big deal of the fact that his film was historically accurate because they used a whopping TWO sources for each issue (omg wow two what a high number... ???). Examples of popular historians include Bill O'Reilly (utter shite), Niall Ferguson (opinions are utter shite but good historian nonetheless) and Eric Hobsbawm (the king). I'd also have a look at David Christian and his book/concept 'Big History', just because it also deals with the issue of historians don't own history - money owns history (because Bill Gates is a massive fan, and has funded the research to such an extent that he is trying to get it to be included in school curriculums). The classic EH Carr is never a bad inclusion. For social history I suggest looking at John Vincent :)
I know I was thinking of using sources: History at the Movies: Using Historical Films in History, HTA Article, March 2001, By Daniel Reynaud/ History Goes to the Movies by Marnie Hughes-Warrington for my second argument
ColorisationThere is more room for nuance in a history extension essay than there is in modern or ancient, however in the end you do want to be making an overall judgement :)
I’m kinda a fence sitter on this (Can we be fence sitters in our exams in our arguments or do we need a more solid argument?).
However i’m not really sure if colorisation is worth the potential inaccuracies that may be caused.Interesting argument! And different to what other students have said previously in this thread - that is why I love this subject so much, SOOOOO much interpretation and debate! Everyone has different opinions and it's amazing <3
Advantages:Definitely promote a greater level of empathy that is for sure - however, is the purpose of history to help us empathise with the past? That could actually be an interesting argument. Is history attempting to understand the past in terms of understanding what it was like in the past, or understanding how the past contributes to today? What do you think? Do you think we study the past to know more about the past? Or do we study the past to know more about what led up to the present conditions of today?
- They are so cool and considered more live-like/relatable to the people of today. :D :D
- Some small details aren’t too big a deal if they are coloured wrong. However, this point can be really hard to differentiate. What could be considered really unimportant to me could be crucial to someone else, and to get that wrong would mean historical inaccuracies.We mentioned earlier the Nazi triangles - can you think of any other examples of this? Where the incorrect colorisation of photos could actually completely tell a new narrative?
DisadvantagesDoes the threat of historical inaccuracies mean we just shouldn't try though? If we can acknowledge that a completely 100% accurate picture is unattainable, and a completely 100% accurate interpretation of history is unattainable - does the discipline of history just disappear? Or do the central aims of its construction change? Is history the search for truth? Does truth always have to be objective?
- Historical inaccuracies: No matter how hard the technological people have worked, you can never have the picture 100% accurate. Your Holocaust example pretty much shows how historians could be falsely misled due to an error in colourisation, therefore leading to completely different interpretations of an event.
Thanks again! I feel like this is such an under appreciated thread! :) :)Absolutely no worries! So excited that this thread is starting to pick up (a. because I think it has the potential to be an amazing resource for extension students but also b. I just really like discussing this kinda stuff hahahaha)
There is more room for nuance in a history extension essay than there is in modern or ancient, however in the end you do want to be making an overall judgement :)Okay, thanks. :) :)
Definitely promote a greater level of empathy that is for sure - however, is the purpose of history to help us empathise with the past? That could actually be an interesting argument. Is history attempting to understand the past in terms of understanding what it was like in the past, or understanding how the past contributes to today? What do you think? Do you think we study the past to know more about the past? Or do we study the past to know more about what led up to the present conditions of today?I don't really think that there is one simple purpose to history- I believe that every historian writes with an agenda and that some purposes are going to be different then others. I believe in some circumstances we don't try to understand what it was like in the past because we don't really believe that it did contribute much to us today. The effects of Pompeii don't really impact 21st Century Australia a huge amount (except that we need to learn about in Ancient) :) :). I think that we also try to understand how the past has led to today. In terms of Australia, we are constantly taught about our past Aboriginal history and how wrong the Europeans actions were. However, I believe in attempting to understand how the past led to today, we automatically believe that the Ancient people weren't as smart as us (like you were saying in the Ancient lecture - we almost believe that we are teleologically evolving to something better). Basically, I believe history is a mix of studying the past to learn more about the past, and what has led up to today.
We mentioned earlier the Nazi triangles - can you think of any other examples of this? Where the incorrect colorisation of photos could actually completely tell a new narrative?I actually tried to do this so much but I couldn't think of anything. I know that there would be quite a few examples though.
Does the threat of historical inaccuracies mean we just shouldn't try though? If we can acknowledge that a completely 100% accurate picture is unattainable, and a completely 100% accurate interpretation of history is unattainable - does the discipline of history just disappear? Or do the central aims of its construction change? Is history the search for truth? Does truth always have to be objective?No, I think that we still need to try, however acknowledging that absolute truth will be unattainable. If we just dismissed everything due to a lack of objectivity and truth then we would have no history-and i don't think that the discipline of history should ever disappear. Then there would be no way to learn about the past. I also don't believe that there will be one methodology that will work for every historian to provide absolute truth (and also, like we said before, maybe objectivity can never be fully reached, no matter how hard they try). I think that to some extent, history is the search for truth but there is also bias' that comes into place (and other factors such as political aims, religious viewpoints and agendas). No, truth doesn't always have to be objective. A historian could be really subjective and still write about something that is true (such as Pliny's account of the eruption which was biased due to his admiration of his uncles actions.)
Absolutely no worries! So excited that this thread is starting to pick up (a. because I think it has the potential to be an amazing resource for extension students but also b. I just really like discussing this kinda stuff hahahaha)I actually really love this thread. Can't wait till it becomes even more popular :D :D
Susie
I don't really think that there is one simple purpose to history- I believe that every historian writes with an agenda and that some purposes are going to be different then others.What are some different purposes you can think of? Also, do you think that this is always a conscious thing? Like do historians intentionally write with this alternative purpose, or is it just inherent.
I believe in some circumstances we don't try to understand what it was like in the past because we don't really believe that it did contribute much to us today. The effects of Pompeii don't really impact 21st Century Australia a huge amount (except that we need to learn about in Ancient) :) :).Very interesting point! But on the flip side then, do you think we only will try and understand what it was like to live in the past if it provides relevance for the present/future? Like your Pompeii example, people in Australia still very much do try to understand what it was like to live in Pompeii and Herculaneum - eg. Estelle Lazer who works at Sydney Uni! I feel like if this was the case, much of Ancient History would go unstudied (apart from maybe the Greeks and Romans), as a direct correlation between a time so long ago, and today is hard to come by.
I think that we also try to understand how the past has led to today. In terms of Australia, we are constantly taught about our past Aboriginal history and how wrong the Europeans actions were.Another great point, which links to the idea of National History! Because if you think about it - why are only Australians taught about Aboriginal history - why isn't it be taught across the world? Is it because we want history to be inherently relatable to us? Or does it go deeper - ie. into the realms of nationalism and national identity? Or is it more a case of eurocentrism? Like - why do we all learn about European history, pretty much no matter where we are, but comparatively less people would be confident in their knowledge of African history, or Latinx history for example? Why do you think there is this fascination with 'national history', and do you think it is inherently a flawed concept?
However, I believe in attempting to understand how the past led to today, we automatically believe that the Ancient people weren't as smart as us (like you were saying in the Ancient lecture - we almost believe that we are teleologically evolving to something better). Basically, I believe history is a mix of studying the past to learn more about the past, and what has led up to today.I think Mary Beard says it best in this article (along with some other amazing things) - "it is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors."
I actually tried to do this so much but I couldn't think of anything. I know that there would be quite a few examples though.Hmmm, definitely tricky! I think any other moments whereby colour is symbolic would be an example - for example colours in religious garments being misrepresented and what not, can impact the way in which we perceive an individuals role within the religion or organisation.
No, I think that we still need to try, however acknowledging that absolute truth will be unattainable.So do you think all interpretations are equally flawed (eg. a postmodernist), or are some interpretations more valid than others (relativist)? If so, what can make someones interpretation more valid?
If we just dismissed everything due to a lack of objectivity and truth then we would have no history-and i don't think that the discipline of history should ever disappear. Then there would be no way to learn about the past. I also don't believe that there will be one methodology that will work for every historian to provide absolute truth (and also, like we said before, maybe objectivity can never be fully reached, no matter how hard they try).Interesting! You say that you don't think that one methodology will work for every historian - what do you mean by that exactly? Obviously there will be variations, however what I find really interesting is that no matter what type of historian they are - eg. relativist, empiricist, etc. - pretty much EVERYONE uses the Rankean source analysis approach. Like, people can hate that guy and disagree with him to their hearts content, but theres no denying the impact of his approach to the discipline of history. Can you note any flaws in his approach?
I think that to some extent, history is the search for truth but there is also bias' that comes into place (and other factors such as political aims, religious viewpoints and agendas). No, truth doesn't always have to be objective. A historian could be really subjective and still write about something that is true (such as Pliny's account of the eruption which was biased due to his admiration of his uncles actions.)Hmm I think I more so mean, does truth have to be objective in that does it have to be universally true to be considered truth? Like is my interpretation still truth, because it is what I experienced, but a subjective truth? Kinda like this meme:
I actually really love this thread. Can't wait till it becomes even more popular :D :Dme too Katie! me too!
What are some different purposes you can think of? Also, do you think that this is always a conscious thing? Like do historians intentionally write with this alternative purpose, or is it just inherent.Different purposes as in religious (Bede), political (Marxism/public history), search for the rational causes of history/learn from the past (Carr), reach the general public (public history/Schama), and to recreate the past. I'm sure sure theres quite a few more as well. I don't think that it is always a conscious thing (maybe for some historians it may have been-Bede's sole purpose was to convert people to Christianity). I think that it could be more of an inherent thing as I don't think that a historian cannot write without a personal purpose no matter how hard they try.
Very interesting point! But on the flip side then, do you think we only will try and understand what it was like to live in the past if it provides relevance for the present/future? Like your Pompeii example, people in Australia still very much do try to understand what it was like to live in Pompeii and Herculaneum - eg. Estelle Lazer who works at Sydney Uni! I feel like if this was the case, much of Ancient History would go unstudied (apart from maybe the Greeks and Romans), as a direct correlation between a time so long ago, and today is hard to come by.Not really. I think that we would still study and try to understand things even if it really doesn't provide any relevance to the present/future.
Another great point, which links to the idea of National History! Because if you think about it - why are only Australians taught about Aboriginal history - why isn't it be taught across the world? Is it because we want history to be inherently relatable to us? Or does it go deeper - ie. into the realms of nationalism and national identity? Or is it more a case of eurocentrism? Like - why do we all learn about European history, pretty much no matter where we are, but comparatively less people would be confident in their knowledge of African history, or Latinx history for example? Why do you think there is this fascination with 'national history', and do you think it is inherently a flawed concept?Yeah, I think that we still want our history to be relatable to us and I believe that it is really nationalistic. I had to look up the word Eurocentrism-and I don't know if i've got it completely right. I do believe that we tend to interpret the world as European-we focus a lot on European history. I don't really know why? Africa's population today is 1.2 billion people while Europe is 740 million. I would not be able to tell you anything about African or Latinx history-I have not learnt anything about it at all. In the last two years i've only spent one term in Ancient on a civilisation other then Europe (Year 11-Qin Shi Huangdi and the terracotta warriors). I think that the fascination with 'national history' is wanting to feel more connected to our country and our traditions/history. Yeah, I think that it is definitely flawed, except I don't really know how it could be changed.
I think Mary Beard says it best in this article (along with some other amazing things) - "it is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors."Really good article!! She makes some great points-I love the quote :D. Will file to look at closer to exams.
Hmmm, definitely tricky! I think any other moments whereby colour is symbolic would be an example - for example colours in religious garments being misrepresented and what not, can impact the way in which we perceive an individuals role within the religion or organisation.Yeah, I definitely see how misrepresenting the symbolism in religious garments could tell a completely new version of history. However, I get that leaving it black and white can change our perceptions on the event as well. I haven't seen the Addams Family (i'm not a huge movie person-except for Harry Potter), but can see how each picture looks really different even though only the colours have been changed.
However, at the same time, even though recolouring the photos can often distort our perception of an image - so can leaving them black and white! For example, take a look at this photo from the set of the Addams Family. Though not necessarily a historical event, it does show how drastically changing a colour to black and white can alter our perception of an image.
(https://c.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/1280/poster/2013/11/3021327-poster-1280-addams-2.jpg)
So do you think all interpretations are equally flawed (eg. a postmodernist), or are some interpretations more valid than others (relativist)? If so, what can make someones interpretation more valid?I don't think that i'm a post modernist because I believe that some things have to be true. Even small truths, like I was at the Ancient lecture can't really be contended as we both saw each other there. For ancient history we can never be sure of the truth, but if 3-4 sources say the same thing you can assume that it may have happened. I believe that it is a lot harder to know what is truth but some things have to be true. I think that by saying that the Holocaust never existed is going way too far but post modernists believe that saying this is ok. So, I guess i'm more of a relativist. I'm not really sure how someone's interpretation can be more valid. I guess that there methodology and purposes would have something to do with it, but I don't know exactly how to judge what source is better.
Interesting! You say that you don't think that one methodology will work for every historian - what do you mean by that exactly?Ok, so i'm not really sure how to explain it. I'm going to use my major as an example;
Obviously there will be variations, however what I find really interesting is that no matter what type of historian they are - eg. relativist, empiricist, etc. - pretty much EVERYONE uses the Rankean source analysis approach. Like, people can hate that guy and disagree with him to their hearts content, but theres no denying the impact of his approach to the discipline of history. Can you note any flaws in his approach?Some of the criticism of Von Ranke were:
Hmm I think I more so mean, does truth have to be objective in that does it have to be universally true to be considered truth? Like is my interpretation still truth, because it is what I experienced, but a subjective truth? Kinda like this meme:No, I don't think it has to be universally true to considered truth. Yeah, I think your interpretation would still be truth. The meme: I have no idea because how could we know what is the right number. I think that they are both right, but it is a subjective truth: to those people it would have looked like a nine or a six, depending on where they are standing.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/six-nine-just-because-you-are-right-does-not-mean-6290850.png)
Are they both right, but they just have different truths? Or are they both wrong, because neither is an objective truth?
Different purposes as in religious (Bede), political (Marxism/public history), search for the rational causes of history/learn from the past (Carr), reach the general public (public history/Schama), and to recreate the past. I'm sure sure theres quite a few more as well. I don't think that it is always a conscious thing (maybe for some historians it may have been-Bede's sole purpose was to convert people to Christianity). I think that it could be more of an inherent thing as I don't think that a historian cannot write without a personal purpose no matter how hard they try.Here are some other purposes that I can think of :) Social / revisionist history - written with the purpose of inserting diverse perspectives according to current agendas. I'm not sure if Bede's sole purpose was to convert - his audience was already largely religious (almost "preaching to the converted"). I think he had two purposes - to express HIS interpretation of the world and to promote the political agenda of the Northumbrian King (his sponsor). So I definitely agree with you that one's historiographical 'purpose' can be really inherent to the author! However, I do think one can be very forthright with their purpose - Simon Schama is a good example :) Despite his liberal background and beliefs, when he was hired by the Conservative British Government to start producing history for schools, he presented a very "apologetic" vie of the British Empire - suggesting that though the impacts where negative, it was an "Empire of Good Intentions", thus in many ways acting as if the British were this benevolent force, improving their imperialist image.
projecting my own voice throughout any essay across any subject always seems to be a struggle for me, never ends up going in the direction i had planned if at all. This really helps though, some good points to keep in mind when writing.So glad this thread gave you some ideas :D If you ever want to test any out, feel free to pop em here to discuss, that is the purpose of the thread after all :)
I think researching deeper than what is given in class helps me make a proper judgement, going along with the bare minimum never gets me anywhere in terms of marks (as I've learnt the hard way lol!)
Different purposes as in religious (Bede), political (Marxism/public history), search for the rational causes of history/learn from the past (Carr), reach the general public (public history/Schama), and to recreate the past. I'm sure sure theres quite a few more as well. I don't think that it is always a conscious thing (maybe for some historians it may have been-Bede's sole purpose was to convert people to Christianity). I think that it could be more of an inherent thing as I don't think that a historian cannot write without a personal purpose no matter how hard they try.
Here are some other purposes that I can think of :) Social / revisionist history - written with the purpose of inserting diverse perspectives according to current agendas. I'm not sure if Bede's sole purpose was to convert - his audience was already largely religious (almost "preaching to the converted"). I think he had two purposes - to express HIS interpretation of the world and to promote the political agenda of the Northumbrian King (his sponsor). So I definitely agree with you that one's historiographical 'purpose' can be really inherent to the author! However, I do think one can be very forthright with their purpose - Simon Schama is a good example :) Despite his liberal background and beliefs, when he was hired by the Conservative British Government to start producing history for schools, he presented a very "apologetic" vie of the British Empire - suggesting that though the impacts where negative, it was an "Empire of Good Intentions", thus in many ways acting as if the British were this benevolent force, improving their imperialist image.I think I agree with you Katie, that most purposes are inherent, rather than actively pursued. Like I don't think that many (not all, but many) historians, when they sit down to write their works think "I'm going to write this history in order to justify US imperial expansion". However, it is just by nature their perspective, as perspective is subjective! I love your insight through Sarah - because you're right, though I'd say most of the time it is unconscious, there are definitely many historians, particularly those that are commissioned such as Schama, that will have ulterior purposes readily set out before they begin to construct their works, which ultimately will distort their search and perception of evidence. Another example of this would be the works of Tacitus, who aimed to criticise the Principate under which he lived, however could not do so, so instead, he wrote about the dynasty before (the Julio-Claudians), presenting them in a very negative light so as to just put the whole idea of a Principate under a negative light, and encourage individuals to strive for a Republic. Definitely that would have played a major, conscious role, when writing his works - at least in my opinion. I also very much agree with your assessment of Bede Sarah! He was definitely essentially preaching to the choir, and I do think that it is important to remember that religion functions in a similar way to ideology, in the sense that it is for many all-consuming, and informs an individuals identity, their perception of their past, their experience of the present, and their anticipation for the future. Many (though again, not all) religious historians will find it extremely difficult to divorce themselves from these beliefs, because it literally informs their perception of reality - and that is all they can write about - their perception of a past reality. This is the same for ideologues, eg. communist historians will always view society through the Marxist conception of history, and thus may interpret events much more differently than a capitalist historian, as they have such radically different world views.
But yeah, that is my perspective on the issue :)
Sarah :)
Not really. I think that we would still study and try to understand things even if it really doesn't provide any relevance to the present/future.Why though? Why do you think that we should still study history if it doesn't provide any relevance? What are your other reasons for studying history?
Yeah, I think that we still want our history to be relatable to us and I believe that it is really nationalistic. I had to look up the word Eurocentrism-and I don't know if i've got it completely right. I do believe that we tend to interpret the world as European-we focus a lot on European history. I don't really know why? Africa's population today is 1.2 billion people while Europe is 740 million. I would not be able to tell you anything about African or Latinx history-I have not learnt anything about it at all. In the last two years i've only spent one term in Ancient on a civilisation other then Europe (Year 11-Qin Shi Huangdi and the terracotta warriors). I think that the fascination with 'national history' is wanting to feel more connected to our country and our traditions/history. Yeah, I think that it is definitely flawed, except I don't really know how it could be changed.In what way do you think that national history is flawed? In my opinion, the whole concept of "nations" is a flawed one. Last year I was originally going to do my major work on Scottish nationalism and the highland myth, and in the process read the entirety (found out later I didn't need to do this...) of Eric Hobsbawm's 'Nations and Nationalism since 1780', and it was very very interesting. Because really - what, at our core, ignoring the constructs of culture, makes us different from another individual from another country? Literally the only difference is geographical. Culture has overtime developed, however, if you had an individual that was born in one country, but raised in another, that culture would also be their culture, no matter their previous heritage, ie. you're not born with culture, it is nurtured. Thus, I think national history is flawed, because it inherently validates this idea of "the nation", which I personally believe is outdated - particularly in our ever more globalised society.
Really good article!! She makes some great points-I love the quote :D. Will file to look at closer to exams.Mary Beard is a babe.
Yeah, I definitely see how misrepresenting the symbolism in religious garments could tell a completely new version of history. However, I get that leaving it black and white can change our perceptions on the event as well. I haven't seen the Addams Family (i'm not a huge movie person-except for Harry Potter), but can see how each picture looks really different even though only the colours have been changed.Definitely :) I think what we have learnt here is that colour does play a lot more of significant role in our lives that we originally perceived. It's most definitely highly symbolic (even just down to the emotions we attach to certain colours, ie. red = anger, passion, etc. - if we really wanted to go down the postmodernism rabbit hole, we may even be able to say that just the inherent subjectivity of colours and the responses they elicit, will alter the accuracy of a photograph!)
I don't think that i'm a post modernist because I believe that some things have to be true. Even small truths, like I was at the Ancient lecture can't really be contended as we both saw each other there.Ayyyyyyeeeeeee 8) I think this is an example of what many call a lower order fact. These are definitely difficult to argue against - for example, we KNOW that WW1 happened. We KNOW that Hitler was around during WW2, etc. etc. However - is that what history is made up of? Lower order facts? In my opinion know - that would just be a book of stats and figures, not history. History is concerned with the higher order facts, ie. the interpretive, and subjective responses to the "how" and the "why"! "Why did World War I happen", "How did Hitler achieve significance during WW2", "What factors led to Katie's decision to attend the Ancient History lecture" etc. etc. ;)
For ancient history we can never be sure of the truth, but if 3-4 sources say the same thing you can assume that it may have happened. I believe that it is a lot harder to know what is truth but some things have to be true. I think that by saying that the Holocaust never existed is going way too far but post modernists believe that saying this is ok.Interesting - you know Stephen Speilburg used a very similar argument to assert the historical accuracy of his film 'Schindler's List'. He said that as they got 2 accounts for each events/issue that was depicted, the film was objectively accurate... However, just my nature (ignoring really the implausibility of his statement by suggesting that truth can be ellicited through the account of only two individuals) films can only ever be a representation of truth, not truth itself. For example, a script will always be subjective. We don't know 100% that this is what was said exactly at the time, nor do we know if it was said in this way (i.e. inflections). Sets are sets, not actual historical locations. Costumes are costumes, not actually what figures wore. And actors are actors, not real historical individuals! So, even if he managed to complete the impossible task, and look at EVERY source available, he still would never be able to present an objective account of the past, simply due to the medium in which he is creating within - cinema.
So, I guess i'm more of a relativist. I'm not really sure how someone's interpretation can be more valid. I guess that there methodology and purposes would have something to do with it, but I don't know exactly how to judge what source is better.I agree with you! I definitely think it comes down to a historian's methodology. For example, While researching for his book 'Killing Reagan', Bill 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 true, 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 subject." 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 Porter, 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 matter. 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, thus, one could argue that Porter's interpretation of the British Empire is going to be more valid than O'Reilly's interpretation of Reagan!
I think the I kinda misread your question and then went on a tangent about truth. Sorry, if I have.
Ok, so i'm not really sure how to explain it. I'm going to use my major as an example;ooooo how interesting! Thanks for sharing, because this would be a fantastic case study to mention within a 'What is History' essay! And I see what you're saying here - a very similar issue to one I raised earlier in regards to O'Reilly. However, I'd argue that just the nature of a hypothesis will result in this to some extent. Like it sounds like Goldhagen took it a bit too far, however I'd venture a guess that Browning was also pretty selective. I mean, even just by qualifying some sources and bad and some as good means that he had a preconceived notion about the history that he aimed to write. It's like EH Carr's fishing analogy (I've mentioned it on this thread before I think!).
The two historians, Browning and Goldhagen both used the same piece of evidence (testimonies from holocaust perpetrators, especially the men of police battalion 101), but came to very different conclusions based on the way they used their evidence. Browning used interpretations that were truthful only some of the time and may have been lying, on top of those that were very self-incriminating. Goldhagen however, decided that he would reject the testimonies that had the potential to be exculpatory and would only take testimonies that were very self-incriminating. This greatly affected his interpretation of the event as he only had evidence that would lead to his hypothesis (which basically said that all Germans were evil).
Browning said this to argue against Goldhagen;
If you go back to Goldhagen’s methodology, if your argument is that all Germans were ‘little Hitler’s’ and you only use the testimony in which people admit that they are evil you have a methodology that can do no other but to confirm the hypothesis it was meant to test. It is guaranteed that you can come up with the result that you want and historians can’t really operate in that way.
I think that even if we had one methodology historians are going to put different weight/importance on evidence and you can come to different interpretations based on your use of evidence.
I don't know if that completely makes sense and i'm not really sure if I answered you question (again!).
Some of the criticism of Von Ranke were:OOoooo great quote!
‘To the next generation, Von Ranke was not Von Rankean enough.’
Didn’t handle his sources carefully enough.In what way?
Used only one type of source and focussed on the upper classmen of the time.Definitely a strong critique - offical documents are not sources available, and will definitely lead to a distorted perspective if only they are consulted. And yes, love the link to top down history as well there!
Chose his sources from a narrow range and became a prisoner of his sources.[/i]Modern source analysis is child's play in comparison to what actual historians need to do, so don't worry :) Everyone is in the same, inexperienced boat. I think, though his application of source analysis was definitely flawed, the concept is still one that it is impossible to deny is significant. Like, no matter what, history relies on source analysis.
I don't do modern so I haven't had to do too many source analysis but the Von Ranke method is used by everybody so it's been pretty important even though it's been criticised a lot.
No, I don't think it has to be universally true to considered truth. Yeah, I think your interpretation would still be truth. The meme: I have no idea because how could we know what is the right number. I think that they are both right, but it is a subjective truth: to those people it would have looked like a nine or a six, depending on where they are standing.Exactly ;) This is my belief as well. I think we can definitely have personal truths, but it is important to remember that our truth is not universal. I think if more people recognised that, humanity could spare a lot of conflict... :P
Why though? Why do you think that we should still study history if it doesn't provide any relevance? What are your other reasons for studying history?Hi Susie! I think this is a REALLY interesting question (we opened our history ext. course with this exact question and I've personally struggled to answer it ever since). But I think to a certain degree the writing of history is actually a really introspective process that reveals the psyche of both the individual historian and their wider context. History, I think, is written to understand the present - I know my major work was WONDERFUL for expressing ideas and concepts I currently held (it was almost therapeutic!!) Of course, that's only one facet of potentially infinite answers to that question, but I personally place a really large emphasis on the answers the writing of history provides for the present. Yuval Noah Harari sums it up really well - “We study history not to know the future but to widen our horizons, to understand that our present situation is neither natural nor inevitable, and that we consequently have many more possibilities before us than we imagine.”
In what way do you think that national history is flawed? In my opinion, the whole concept of "nations" is a flawed one. Last year I was originally going to do my major work on Scottish nationalism and the highland myth, and in the process read the entirety (found out later I didn't need to do this...) of Eric Hobsbawm's 'Nations and Nationalism since 1780', and it was very very interesting. Because really - what, at our core, ignoring the constructs of culture, makes us different from another individual from another country? Literally the only difference is geographical. Culture has overtime developed, however, if you had an individual that was born in one country, but raised in another, that culture would also be their culture, no matter their previous heritage, ie. you're not born with culture, it is nurtured. Thus, I think national history is flawed, because it inherently validates this idea of "the nation", which I personally believe is outdated - particularly in our ever more globalised society.I couldn't agree more!! The national myth, I think, is largely sustained by an innate desire for both differentiation and categorization. Like Harari says (I can't help but quote him constantly, he's amazing!!) “Evolution has made Homo sapiens, like other social mammals, a xenophobic creature. Sapiens instinctively divide humanity into two parts, ‘we’ and ‘they’.”
Why do you think that for the most part, we only focus on Eurocentric history? Do you think it is an implicit bias of the West (and a bias that the west, through imperialism, has enforced on members from other groups such as the East), in that they perceive the West/Europe to be culturally superior? Do you think that is inherently, a) racist/xenophobic, and b) reductionist?I think a sense of cultural superiority is DEFINITELY a key factor. Eurocentrism is DEEPLY pervasive in our historical records - especially due to Western imperialism. While western historical methodology is always somewhat in flux (quite clearly seen in the creation of historical 'schools' of thought), it rests relatively heavily on the appropriated scientific methodology of figures such as von Ranke, and the 'logic' of figures such as Socrates and his Socratic method. But this isn't at all inclusive - for example, the lack of explicitly written history relegates Indigenous Australians and their past to the 'not really worth studying' bin. Australian history often 'begins' with colonization (invasion!!) due to both a focus on European powers and emphasis on western methodology.
Definitely :) I think what we have learnt here is that colour does play a lot more of significant role in our lives that we originally perceived. It's most definitely highly symbolic (even just down to the emotions we attach to certain colours, ie. red = anger, passion, etc. - if we really wanted to go down the postmodernism rabbit hole, we may even be able to say that just the inherent subjectivity of colours and the responses they elicit, will alter the accuracy of a photograph!)I actually have two really great videos regarding this issue!!
Ayyyyyyeeeeeee 8) I think this is an example of what many call a lower order fact. These are definitely difficult to argue against - for example, we KNOW that WW1 happened. We KNOW that Hitler was around during WW2, etc. etc. However - is that what history is made up of? Lower order facts? In my opinion know - that would just be a book of stats and figures, not history. History is concerned with the higher order facts, ie. the interpretive, and subjective responses to the "how" and the "why"! "Why did World War I happen", "How did Hitler achieve significance during WW2", "What factors led to Katie's decision to attend the Ancient History lecture" etc. etc. ;)
Interesting how you mentioned Holocaust denial and postmodernism, because David Irving, a really controversial historian who does deny the Holocaust, used postmodernist rhetoric to "validate" his work (I think i court!), suggesting that as all history is essentially an interpretations (as EH Carr says "Interpretation is the lifeblood of history"!), whose to say that one persons subjective interpretation is better or more accurate than another individuals... personally I just think he's an idiot, but it definitely does indicate one of the holes in postmodernism, in that by putting all history in the same category of "just an interpretation", it fails to account for the fact that, though yes, no interpretation can be 100% accurate, some are just better and more researched than others.I think I slightly disagree here! David Irving is a really prominent example, in my opinion, of the pitfalls of revisionism in history. I think that revisionism, while often a force for good in scholarship, places an unapologetically large emphasis on the particular ideologies of the time - as Richard J Evans says; "Ideology therefore trumps integrity". Deborah Lipstadt discusses the case in her awesome TED talk, where she says: "What I found instead were people parading as respectable academics. What did they have? They had an institute. An 'Institute for Historical Review.' They had a journal -- a slick journal -- a "Journal of Historical Review." One filled with papers -- footnote-laden papers. And they had a new name. Not neo-Nazis, not anti-Semites -- revisionists. They said, "We are revisionists. We are out to do one thing: to revise mistakes in history." But all you had to do was go one inch below the surface, and what did you find there? The same adulation of Hitler, praise of the Third Reich, anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice. This is what intrigued me. It was anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, parading as rational discourse." I think revisionism often dances the line between propaganda and post-modernism in that respect - post-modernism (in my opinion) really seeks to 'broaden' truth rather than deconstruct the concept all together.
I think we can definitely have personal truths, but it is important to remember that our truth is not universal. I think if more people recognised that, humanity could spare a lot of conflict... :PYou're totally right!! I genuinely think empathy is one of the most underrated emotions of humanity :).
Hi Susie! I think this is a REALLY interesting question (we opened our history ext. course with this exact question and I've personally struggled to answer it ever since). But I think to a certain degree the writing of history is actually a really introspective process that reveals the psyche of both the individual historian and their wider context. History, I think, is written to understand the present - I know my major work was WONDERFUL for expressing ideas and concepts I currently held (it was almost therapeutic!!) Of course, that's only one facet of potentially infinite answers to that question, but I personally place a really large emphasis on the answers the writing of history provides for the present. Yuval Noah Harari sums it up really well - “We study history not to know the future but to widen our horizons, to understand that our present situation is neither natural nor inevitable, and that we consequently have many more possibilities before us than we imagine.”LOVE LOVE LOVE Yuval Noah Harari <3 One of my all time faves, not only as a historian, but as a writer period. Also super interesting points here, and I definitely think I agree with you. What impact do you think that has to the discipline though, if our primary purpose is writing for/too understand the present? One example I can think of is that it may put a distorted emphasis on some history, while other history gets neglected, just because it is more interesting/"culturally relevant". Eg. in England, British Imperial history has had a boom in popularity, in light of recent events (eg. Brexit) that emphasise British exceptionalism. Can you think of any other examples of this?
It reminds me of something slightly off topic but still really interesting - the subject matter of horror films! If one studies the actual SUBJECT of films in regards to when they were made, one can loosely understand the 'collective' consciousness of the time. Like how "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - where good ol ***american individuality*** is replaced with a mindless collective - was produced during a time of rampant McCarthyism, and how modern horror films often centre around home invasions (possibly a larger metaphor for the current fear of invasion of a national level). Here's an awesome article: https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/how-horror-movies-have-changed-since-their-beginning/AWESOME example! We actually watched this film in my modern history class last year for this very reason, and is another reason why I disagree with the empiricist mindset that the only sources worth analysing when constructing history are official documents, as these films are a really good indicator of general beliefs, attitudes and values as well! Also thanks so much for linking those articles - they look fab :)
I couldn't agree more!! The national myth, I think, is largely sustained by an innate desire for both differentiation and categorization. Like Harari says (I can't help but quote him constantly, he's amazing!!) “Evolution has made Homo sapiens, like other social mammals, a xenophobic creature. Sapiens instinctively divide humanity into two parts, ‘we’ and ‘they’.”Super super super interesting points here - and particularly relevant as we are living within an increasingly globalised world, due to new technologies enabling greater communication and transportation. I wonder if this issue would be as prevalent if we began civilisation this way - whether the forced isolation (ie. it was out of their control) is a critical factor for the development of a "national identity" or whether it would have occurred no matter what. Not necessarily something worth dwelling on I guess, as we're purely dealing with hypotheticals, but nonetheless I thought it was kinda interesting to consider. I wonder though whether this will in any way subside over time, due to this increasing globalisation, or whether it will just encourage more nationalist history in order to further emphasise exceptionalism.
I also find that these sorts of structures are (unfortunately) self-perpetuating - we construct them in order to differentiate, place excess emphasis on their existence and then use their existence to differentiate even further (i.e form 'borders' and an exclusive sense of national identity, then indulge in the xenophobia/racism this scism generates)
I think a sense of cultural superiority is DEFINITELY a key factor. Eurocentrism is DEEPLY pervasive in our historical records - especially due to Western imperialism. While western historical methodology is always somewhat in flux (quite clearly seen in the creation of historical 'schools' of thought), it rests relatively heavily on the appropriated scientific methodology of figures such as von Ranke, and the 'logic' of figures such as Socrates and his Socratic method. But this isn't at all inclusive - for example, the lack of explicitly written history relegates Indigenous Australians and their past to the 'not really worth studying' bin. Australian history often 'begins' with colonization (invasion!!) due to both a focus on European powers and emphasis on western methodology.Agree with everything said here, though I'd like to emphasise the importance of the Enlightenment period as a whole as well, in that it developed the entire notion of "civilisation" in it's westernised conception. The ideals of reason and progress were what many used to justify said imperial expansion, as western "reason" and "progress" was seen as good, whereas the cultural beliefs and values of other, non-european nations, were seen as backwards, and in need of European intervention. In that way, you could say that the neglect of other cultures history could be a further product of this "Enlightenment" mindset - particularly as many Enlightenment thinkers see history as a teleological process. With that in mind, in order to not disrupt this teleological narrative, historians may purposely neglect to discuss the history of the "uncivilised" (according to their own, subjective and xenophobic definition of civilisation), so as to maintain this history of "progress".
I actually have two really great videos regarding this issue!!Wow! Both of these are super interesting. I guess I just assumed that all colours would be accommodated for no matter the language - the fact that some only have three words to describe colour is fascinating! This reminds me of how limiting english often is as well, in comparison to say German, which has words for a variety of different things that have no english equivalent (or well, we can describe what it means, but we don't have just one single word). Here is a link to a website that goes through some examples of this. I'm sure this would have many historiographical implications as well, particularly in regards to trying to understand ancient languages, whereby we don't have a translator who is able to explain the meaning behind a word that doesn't have an equivalent in another language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMqZR3pqMjg - This one discusses how languages around the world describe colour both similarly and differently, which is really problematic for history! (reminds me - there's a lot of debate about whether our ancestors could actually see the colour blue!! Homer, and other Ancient Greek writers, often described the sky and sea as different colors than blue - and we don't know if they just not have a word for it, or if they couldn't perceive it!! - here's a great article: http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/hoffman_01_13/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d16LNHIEJzs - This one is about how early colour film was produced with white skin tones in mind, and as such poorly represents African american populations on film (suuper problematic when viewing pictures for evidence)
Couldn't agree more :). I think Deborah Lipstadt sums it up really well when she says "many of us have been taught to think there are facts and there are opinions -- after studying deniers, I think differently. There are facts, there are opinions, and there are lies."Exactly! I think this is a big reason why I personally ascribe to a more relativist approach, rather than a postmodernist (despite being very keenly into a lot of the more postmodernist ideas, such as the role of linguistics). This article isn't exactly on this topic, but it is related and still raises some relevant points. It's titled "No, you're not entitled to your opinion", and deals with the supposedly incorrect (and very postmodernist) notion that all opinions are valid - despite some "opinions" actually being based in research and evidence, while others on emotion and psuedo-science. Though this doesn't deal with the concept in a historiographical sense, I think it is still really interesting! My favourite quote: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.” Think it sums this all up really nicely - if you can't back up your opinion with evidence and reason, your opinion is essentially invalid, and should not stand in the way of other individuals whose opinion is more informed and researched. Do you agree with this notion?
I think I slightly disagree here! David Irving is a really prominent example, in my opinion, of the pitfalls of revisionism in history. I think that revisionism, while often a force for good in scholarship, places an unapologetically large emphasis on the particular ideologies of the time - as Richard J Evans says; "Ideology therefore trumps integrity". Deborah Lipstadt discusses the case in her awesome TED talk, where she says: "What I found instead were people parading as respectable academics. What did they have? They had an institute. An 'Institute for Historical Review.' They had a journal -- a slick journal -- a "Journal of Historical Review." One filled with papers -- footnote-laden papers. And they had a new name. Not neo-Nazis, not anti-Semites -- revisionists. They said, "We are revisionists. We are out to do one thing: to revise mistakes in history." But all you had to do was go one inch below the surface, and what did you find there? The same adulation of Hitler, praise of the Third Reich, anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice. This is what intrigued me. It was anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, parading as rational discourse." I think revisionism often dances the line between propaganda and post-modernism in that respect - post-modernism (in my opinion) really seeks to 'broaden' truth rather than deconstruct the concept all together.Nice argument, and great example! I think there are definitely a lot of complaints that can be made about revisionist history. Another one is that there may be a certain desire to be a "revisionist" historian - to go against the grain, be new, exciting and different - that may distort their purpose and intent. This issues goes beyond just holocaust denial - I think some historians want to be a revisionist, so they will purposely look for evidence that supports the contrary view, and ignore the evidence that has led to mainstream interpretation. Though I do think historians shouldn't automatically accept the mainstream view of history (because of course, there are a lot of other, negative factors that go into the development of mainstream interpretation), I do think that if your goal is to be a revisionist, then your goal is inherently flawed, as your goal isn't to find "truth" it is to find an alternative truth, that may be less credible.
You're totally right!! I genuinely think empathy is one of the most underrated emotions of humanity :).I think it's really important to the study of history as well!
Thanks so much for this discussion, it's really awesome!!Thank you for contributing too it! It's students like you that help to make this thread grow into the incredibly useful resource it has the potential to be <3 This was all super interesting to read, and you provided a tonne of further examples as well! Go you 8)
- Sarah :D
these were so interesting!! I understand some of the limitations/issues with historical fiction however i think its a great beginner to learning the content in an engaging manner! (very much enjoyed horrible histories when i was younger too hahaha)Ahh so you think historical fiction is kinda the "gateway" to studying history more in depth? Interesting perspective, and for the most part I kinda agree :) But on the other hand - I'd argue that it can create a level of complacency as well. As you said, historical fiction is often more engaging, and thus is "easier" to consume. Could you potentially argue that rather than being a gateway to studying more in depth, for many people it just makes them think "hey, I know this now", and not bother to look further?
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?
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!SpoilerIt 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. 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.
Have fun :)
Susie
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?
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!SpoilerIt 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. 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.
Have fun :)
Susie
Gotta love those classics <3 Enduring relevance and all :PIf these views are made with no supporting evidence, defining its categorisation as historical analysis, then are they made by a historian according to your view?
To a certain extent did the source come first before the historian. Keith Windshuttle's recognition of how evidence often become the catalyse to a historian's perspective and approach holds plausible sense, as often views that are made by historians have no supporting evidence, which defies such a interpretation being a historical analysis.
However, to delve deeper there is also numerous sources which are categorised to also be a historian's perspective. If such sources are considered sources, then wouldn't the historian come before the source?Interesting point! But what, according to your reasoning, where those other historian's perspective built upon? Sources, which will inevitably be primary. Even if a historian analyses another historians work, who analysed another historians work, who analysed another historians work (because history is pretty much just one long game of Chinese whispers), they are essentially analysing the multitude of interpretations, or other peoples interpretations of the primary evidence.
Upon that recognition, it is not just sources which hold the historian's analysis as its primary focus which show the historians coming before sources. Sources are creations of humanity, as without the intellect of humanity to classify such as sources, their existence would not have happened.Wait, so are you saying that sources are only "sources" when we assert them to be significant enough to be classified as a source? How very linguistic structuralist of you ;) So you believe sources can't exist without the recognition of historians that they are sources, thus they have a kinda, co-dependent relationship?
Materialistic sources such as vases, paintings and books are all creations of a human's depiction of their subject. Yet when we turn to the other side of the spectrum, we come to the question: Who are historians?Do you agree with this definition? I personally think that it's quite limiting. "An expert in or student" - who defines an expert? and is a student just anyone who studies history in some capacity? Is someone who reads a history book once now a historian? Furthermore, the latter half of this definition excludes some more recent iterations of the historical discipline, such as Macro-history/Big History. It also completely lacks any mention of the role interpretations - how a historian interprets history. In that sense, can anyone be an expert? If it's all just interpretation?
Under Oxford dictionary, historians are:
An expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon.
Thus historians are also a invention of humanity. Without our scholars' choice to indulge themselves into the analysis of the past, there would be no historians. However, their analysis is based on sources, which then places sources before historians. Perhaps historians might not be able to exist without sources.Really like the last line here :)
Rather than affirming historians being dependent on sources, it can be said that the historian is dependent on the source which is dependent on humanity.
To conclude, there is no order for which existed first, the historian or the source. Above all, humanity existed first in order to create the source and the historian.Really interesting interpretation, and links well I think to postmodernism, and the idea of constructs. We construct our reality, and thus this co-dependant relationship between the historian and their sources is similarly just a construction. I suggest having a read of some of the stuff written by Derrida and Foucault :)
Which came first? The historian or the source?I love your inclusion of the concept of lower order and higher order facts :) Fantastic and important distinction. In terms of your argument though... I'm not sure I 100% agree! I definitely think that sources and evidence play a role, but overall I think a historians interpretation is dependant upon how they WANT to interpret the evidence, rather than what the evidence actually says. As EH Carr says, the historian is a fisherman, the facts are fish in an ocean, the resulting “catch” or work of history produced, is a result of where the fisherman chooses to fish and which tackle he chooses to use. By nature a historian has a hypothesis before they look at sources, and they'll purposely look for sources that support their interpretation, or look at sources in away that supports their interpretation. Though I think it is simplistic to suggest that the sources themselves play no role, I think for the most part, interpretation is king 8)
Hey, so here are my ideas. I think I ended up referring too much to the source but I’m not sure.
I believe that the sources/evidence came first. I don’t really believe that history can exist without sources because historians base their arguments on historical evidence and sources. Keith Windshuttle argues some evidence such as ‘names, numbers and expressions on the pages do not change’, therefore affirming that lower order facts do not require interpretation. However, in the majority of sources, ‘the range of possibilities is always finite … subject to debate’. There is many differing, often opposing interpretations for the same event or historical figure which is based on the sources and evidence gathered by historians.
I believe that historians are dependent on sources to formulate their analysis as they validate their argument and ‘allow anyone to examine it for themselves’.But what if historians are purposely looking for sources that validate them, and ignoring the sources that contradict them? For example, Bill O'Reilly completely ignored the testimony of Reagan's key aides while writing his book 'Killing Reagan', but based his interpretation instead on a random memo, that was lated recanted by the author, that presented a different view of the president (that he was mentally unwell, and unfit to be president, to the extent whereby his aides conspired to have him removed, something that the aides actively deny).
Windshuttle’s closing sentence, ‘evidence itself that determines what case it is possible to make’ shows how historians are limited by their historical evidence in writing their histories. Looking at sources in depth also allows historians to ‘suggest alternative arguments, interpretations and conclusions, and different problems to pursue’ in order to change their initial method and hypothesis. However, I do believe that historians put differing amounts of weight on some evidence, therefore making the significance of each source dependent on the historian who is analysing it.I think your final sentence is important here, and is why I personally believe that the historian came first :) My interpretation of the question is that a source isn't a source until a historian deems it so, and they deem it so after it (usually) serves the purpose of validating their interpretation. What do you think? (I am inviting you to tear my interpretation to shreds ;) )
Thanks again Susie :) (also huge congrats on the 1000 posts and 200 upvotes)!! Also, so happy that this thread is becoming more popular! :DNawww thank you <3 And I enjoyed every single one of those posts (but especially the ones on this thread ;)) - you and me both my friend! As uni is commencing, I'm going to be less able to respond quickly to arguments (I'll still do my best to always respond, but it'll be less regular). My proposal to all the active members of this thread - start debating with one another :) I'll continue to post questions, resources, and my own opinions - but when I'm taking a while to respond to one user, feel free to jump in and respond yourself! Remember that there is no wrong answer, its all just a subjective interpretation ;)
I suggest having a read of some of the stuff written by Derrida and Foucault :)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?
I love your inclusion of the concept of lower order and higher order facts :) Fantastic and important distinction. In terms of your argument though... I'm not sure I 100% agree! I definitely think that sources and evidence play a role, but overall I think a historians interpretation is dependant upon how they WANT to interpret the evidence, rather than what the evidence actually says. As EH Carr says, the historian is a fisherman, the facts are fish in an ocean, the resulting “catch” or work of history produced, is a result of where the fisherman chooses to fish and which tackle he chooses to use. By nature a historian has a hypothesis before they look at sources, and they'll purposely look for sources that support their interpretation, or look at sources in away that supports their interpretation. Though I think it is simplistic to suggest that the sources themselves play no role, I think for the most part, interpretation is king 8)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.
But what if historians are purposely looking for sources that validate them, and ignoring the sources that contradict them? For example, Bill O'Reilly completely ignored the testimony of Reagan's key aides while writing his book 'Killing Reagan', but based his interpretation instead on a random memo, that was lated recanted by the author, that presented a different view of the president (that he was mentally unwell, and unfit to be president, to the extent whereby his aides conspired to have him removed, something that the aides actively deny).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 objective 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.
I think your final sentence is important here, and is why I personally believe that the historian came first :) My interpretation of the question is that a source isn't a source until a historian deems it so, and they deem it so after it (usually) serves the purpose of validating their interpretation. What do you think? (I am inviting you to tear my interpretation to shreds ;) )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).
Nawww thank you <3 And I enjoyed every single one of those posts (but especially the ones on this thread ;)) - you and me both my friend! As uni is commencing, I'm going to be less able to respond quickly to arguments (I'll still do my best to always respond, but it'll be less regular). My proposal to all the active members of this thread - start debating with one another :) I'll continue to post questions, resources, and my own opinions - but when I'm taking a while to respond to one user, feel free to jump in and respond yourself! Remember that there is no wrong answer, its all just a subjective interpretation ;)Definitely put uni above ATARnotes stuff-we want you to do well! I'll definitely try to debate with everybody :D!
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?
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.
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."
Hey guys,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.
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
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!
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 ;D
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.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.
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.
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 :D!Naww thanks ahaha - I definitely use this site as procrastination lol. And yay! Fantastic, you're an absolute star Katie!
Thanks again!,
Katie
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!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.
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 ;))!
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.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).
Opinions?
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. :)
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 :D :DLiterally so pumped that someone mentioned this!!
a) Dates are entirely subject to a totally made up system of ordered chronology!!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).
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)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!".
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!
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!!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!).
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 :P); 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.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 ;) :D) 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'.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!
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!Flashbacks to year 9 Visual Arts right now omg aha - Magritte right? This is the image I believe you are referring too!
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 8) ) 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.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.
***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 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.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.
Thanks for the question!! ;D
- Sarah
What constitutes a historian?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.
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':Ok, so I’m going to end up talking about JFK-which is my case study :)
"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."
sorry for the triple post natmod/admins. not sorry i'm moderator for this section i can do what i want bitchessssThe 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 :P) 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.
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."
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).
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.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 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.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! :D Thanks so much Susie! :)Yay fantastic! Sorry for fuelling your procrastination aha :) Some great arguments here Katie! Well done :D
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 :P) 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.
Here's some cool quotes that kinda align with my view (and probably won't be appreciated much elsewhere):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!
- 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)
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.
And yayyayaya! Hopefully first of many mitchello ;) Sorry for the kinda late reply - just started uni again :(Thanks for replying at all, issallgood. Hopefully you get to write more on memes ;D
Susie
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 ;) )
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*
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 ;DNo worries! And yes, I hope so too ;)
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 ;) )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.
An individual who engages professionally in the historical process, through their unique research and production of an interpretation of the past.
*casually write that down in my essay that is due in a few days*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
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)
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.
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;
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 meanYayaya! 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 :)
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
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.This DEFINITELY relates to historiography don't worry! This is actually relates to something that I brought up and discussed in both of my lectures :) It is very easy for contemporary historians (and ordinary individuals!) to look back at the past with this sense of superiority - that we have "progressed" as a society away from backwards ideals, without taking into account the motivators behind said values and ideals - ideology. The ideology of the time - often religious, though not always - has a critical impact upon the way in which a culture defines their sense of morality. As the philosopher Slavoj Zizek discusses within many of his works, ideology is an inescapable reality, that informs the way in which an individual perceives their past, experiences their present, and anticipates their future. Here is actually a fantastic video (its a clip from his film 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology') that explores this briefly. Though you don't have to agree with the ideology, you do have to understand it, in order to make a more educated and fair assessment upon a past society/persons actions. For example, a Marxist, who perceives the "collective" to be more important that the "individual" would view our current society as morally reprehensible, as from their perspective capitalism inevitably results in the exploitation of the many, for the benefit of the few. However, a capitalist doesn't perceive their actions to be "exploitation", and instead would consider capitalism to be a moral ideology that allows for individuals who work hard to benefit from their innovation. They would also consider the actions of marxists and communists to be morally wrong, and potentially encroaching on individual freedoms and liberties.
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?Yesss, consistently is a great synonym. I think that's far more open and accurate than the actual definition of 'historian'.
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;(Like Susie, no disrespect intended) Yeah, religion is fascinating in that regard. Having gone to a Christian school and what not, I'm still quite unfamiliar with other religions, and why people actually engage with Christianity, as oppose to other widespread belief systems - which obviously hold similar merit due to their wide practice (is it due to evidence, convenience, etc? I'm not sure)
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.
What do you mean by academics being reclusive with their opinions?Maybe scientific was the right term, but I just consider them less likely to impose moral standards/bias (which they seek to minimise) on their history - as oppose to narrative historians, who often reflect distinct values in their account (for example, ancient Crusade histories reciprocate the distinct religious belief of a given party). And thanks a lot, it's great fun to write about history extension ;D (this is the only subject I'd do it for)
I think you responded very well to the question! Happy to have you around the debate thread, your ideas have been super insightful :)
Susie
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).Almost finished reading your Ancient notes, I have been reading them in between exams and they are so incredibly helpful. And, I’ve found that I’m laughing at bits which is really weird for a textbook (it's really conversational like, which is cool) :D. By this, would you argue that a textbook (e.g for Ancient) cannot be a historical work? Would you argue that a historical book would need a unique interpretation/hypothesis of an event? What would differentiate a historical work from just a book about history? You talk about this, but how can you know the difference.
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.
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 never thought of it this way but it makes sense. Another example of this (I think?) is Mary Beard wrote her book on Pompeii in 2010 and her documentary came out a lot more recently. Actually just found this article, Mary Beard it doesn't really matter if tourists damage Pompeii (don’t know if this is entirely historiological) but what are your thoughts on this?
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.Yeah, I was meaning fiction. Really want to watch Dunkirk now-hopefully after exams, what is it about? Understand all your arguments, like movies while, encompassing historical places/events still include a lot of fiction elements. :)
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!).Never really thought about it this way as well! Now that I think about it, obviously museums and video games aren’t made by only one person and they aren’t really historians. I actually have no idea what my friends conclusions were. We had to present them to the class but I don’t do modern so I didn’t see hers and really wasn’t heaps interested at the time. I’m pretty sure, one of the main reasons she did it was to play video games :D. I might ask her after exams and get back to you.
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!Never heard of macrohistory before-sounds really cool! What types of issues/concerns does it look at?
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.Yeah, especially my two Camelot historians were really close to Kennedy and obviously this would have impacted their interpretations. What would you think if historians actually find Agrippina’s diaries? Would we consider them historical documents and her a historian or would there need to be more of a sense of personal detachment from this?
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 :)Before history extension, I actually knew hardly anything about Kennedy, except for the assassination. I also know barely anything on US presidents so I can’t judge him well. I think he was trying to be a good person but some of the problems were caused by his incompetency and his youth as president. Not all of his actions were fantastic-The Bay of Pigs was pretty much a disaster (he relied a lot on his advisors at the time) and there are arguments that his actions led to American involvement in the Vietnam War. Kinda weird how influential the Camelot historians have been in shaping our views of Kennedy.
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.Are all revisionist historians always critical of the initial interpretations? Do they write only to challenge the views of prior historians? Is this their initial hypothesis, which sounds really biased/subjective to me.
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).Yeah, definitely stuff like his affair may have affected his precedency. We never got to study his affair in class. Out of the five topics we could have studied my class is doing Cuba, Kennedy and Khrushchev and Indochina. My teacher said that sometimes the essays on his private life aren’t as sophisticated as the ones that my class is doing. It would be really interesting though. :)
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 think that he was a lot more balanced then the other historical schools that did write about Kennedy. While I think that he presents both side of the argument, he still uses some judgements about the event and isn’t truly 100% impartial.
Yay fantastic! Sorry for fuelling your procrastination aha :) Some great arguments here Katie! Well done :DThanks heaps again Susie! Don’t worry about my procrastination (this was heaps more fun!), also counting this as study for my extension exam on Tuesday! :D
Susie
Yesss, consistently is a great synonym. I think that's far more open and accurate than the actual definition of 'historian'.I think so to - though katie brings up a very good point as to what "consistent" actually means! Ahhhhhh linguistics - always ruining our fun. But yeah, my definition of consistently may be different to someone elses definition. Do you think that matters?
(Like Susie, no disrespect intended) Yeah, religion is fascinating in that regard. Having gone to a Christian school and what not, I'm still quite unfamiliar with other religions, and why people actually engage with Christianity, as oppose to other widespread belief systems - which obviously hold similar merit due to their wide practice (is it due to evidence, convenience, etc? I'm not sure)Same here - went to Catholic schools all my life, despite personally being Agnostic. With that in mind, as an agnostic, I don't believe it is about evidence, because I personally don't believe their is evidence of the existence of a higher power - that is why I'm agnostic (again - no disrespect if anyone here is religious, this is just my personal belief). I think it is much to do with context, where you were born etc. I can guarantee that a Christian individual from Australia, everything else the same but born in India, would likely have grown up Hindu instead. Though there are a small minority of people that find religion later in life, for the most part it is something you are grow up with - it is contextual.
Maybe scientific was the right term, but I just consider them less likely to impose moral standards/bias (which they seek to minimise) on their history - as oppose to narrative historians, who often reflect distinct values in their account (for example, ancient Crusade histories reciprocate the distinct religious belief of a given party). And thanks a lot, it's great fun to write about history extension ;D (this is the only subject I'd do it for)Oooo this relates well to something I had to look at in uni recently! Here is an extract from John Hartley's 'Repurposing literacy' (not a historian! so don't use him as one in your essays - but I'm sure you can use his ideas):
Wow, veerry interesting video. Is there a solution (strange word choice, I'm referring to its distorting impacts) to ideology? Does Zizek suggest something in later sections of the documentary, or is his proposition, like you said, the understanding of a given ideology?I have not watched the documentary in a long while, so I can't remember 100%, but I don't believe he offers a solution - it is an inescapable reality after all. It definitely limits our ability to empathise holistically with past and existing ideologies, however in my opinion, as someone who hasn't accepted postmodernism to the fullest degree, and considers themselves more of a relativist, that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least strive to understand - even if we can only get 20% of the way there, at least we are 20% of the way there rather than 0!
And from here, to what extent does our own dogma limit our ability to empathise with or understand past/existing ideologies? Super cool.
I'm not really set on an answer myself, maybe 1am is rough on my coherence
Hey hey!Hey,
For any of you 12 lurkers, if you would like to join the discussion, you will have to make a completely free account on ATAR Notes!
From there, just click reply and post away!!
Good luck with your exam tomorrow! Hopefully this will prove helpful <3
Susie
I think so to - though katie brings up a very good point as to what "consistent" actually means! Ahhhhhh linguistics - always ruining our fun. But yeah, my definition of consistently may be different to someone elses definition. Do you think that matters?Jeez, the definition of words within a definition are unstable - maybe 'historian' is open to interpretation too. I don't think linguistics offers much freedom from the issue. To us, it probably doesn't matters soo much (still to a minor extent), but maybe more so in the future, where words are susceptible to redefining or differing uses (I think you guys were talking about it with 'bitch' earlier or maybe thats a completely different thread)
Same here - went to Catholic schools all my life, despite personally being Agnostic. With that in mind, as an agnostic, I don't believe it is about evidence, because I personally don't believe their is evidence of the existence of a higher power - that is why I'm agnostic (again - no disrespect if anyone here is religious, this is just my personal belief). I think it is much to do with context, where you were born etc. I can guarantee that a Christian individual from Australia, everything else the same but born in India, would likely have grown up Hindu instead. Though there are a small minority of people that find religion later in life, for the most part it is something you are grow up with - it is contextual.Ah, the 'evidence' I meant isn't really evidence tbh, thats what its usually advertised as in the articles and stuff I've read. I meant things like biblical prophecies that have come to fruition, some town with crumbled walls claimed to be Jericho (that place where the people yelled and played their trumpets, leading to the walls falling down), etc etc. I agree with what you've said though
Basically, what Hoggart looked at and discussed was this idea that what was "popular" was easily manipulated, and thus subject to propaganda, ideology and alterior motives, whereas there is this perception, that you also mention, that intellectuals and academics deal with their works in a different way. That there is a divide between what is "popular" and what is "intellectual". However, if you take into account to stuff that Zizek talks about, or just postmodernism in general, it is clear that even academic historians will be impacted by these same issues - it just may not be as obvious - or may even be obvious, but we miss it because we assume that it is more objective!!Wow its like what we were talking about earlier with the issue of time, most of the histories that I condescend for their bias are all detached from our current historical context. If only I had the ideology glasses :(
Almost finished reading your Ancient notes, I have been reading them in between exams and they are so incredibly helpful. And, I’ve found that I’m laughing at bits which is really weird for a textbook (it's really conversational like, which is cool) :D. By this, would you argue that a textbook (e.g for Ancient) cannot be a historical work? Would you argue that a historical book would need a unique interpretation/hypothesis of an event? What would differentiate a historical work from just a book about history? You talk about this, but how can you know the difference.So glad you like them! Yeah I wanted to make sure that the tone was a lot more casual - like I wanted it to feel like what it is, a student talking to another student :) That's whats so great about the ATAR Notes books is that you are getting that student perspective, so i didn't want to lose that by being super formal.
I really like your definition, although I do like the inclusion of the word consistently. However, even then what we define as consistently? How often/consistency does a historian need to work on their book?I LOVE how nitpicky you all are this is great! Excellent point, because we're all going to have a different interpretation of "consistent". For me, I think its the case that to be a historian, one should be researching/working towards the production of a piece of work at least to a "part-time" capacity. What I mean by this is dedicating roughly the amount of hours per-week that a part-time student or employee dedicates to their studies/work, to history (but beyond at a "student" level - what I mean is independent research and inquiry).
I never thought of it this way but it makes sense. Another example of this (I think?) is Mary Beard wrote her book on Pompeii in 2010 and her documentary came out a lot more recently. Actually just found this article, Mary Beard it doesn't really matter if tourists damage Pompeii (don’t know if this is entirely historiological) but what are your thoughts on this?Yeah Mary Beard is another fantastic example! As is Simon Schama's works.
Yeah, I was meaning fiction. Really want to watch Dunkirk now-hopefully after exams, what is it about? Understand all your arguments, like movies while, encompassing historical places/events still include a lot of fiction elements. :)Dunkirk is about a real events that happened during WWII, whereby around 400 000 British soldiers were stranded and surrounded on a beach in France (Dunkirk). It was a pretty hopeless situation, and the Germans were picking off the soldiers from the air, and bombing/torpedo-ing all the large boats that came by to pick up the British soldiers and take them back home (which they really weren't that far away from - just across the Channel - something that many people swim across every year). What ended up happening is a lot of civilian boats were requisitioned by the army - like tiny fishing boats - to come and pick up the soldiers, and in some cases, civilians would actually be the ones manning the boats, risking their lives to come and help out the stranded soldiers - they ended up saving about 300 000 men, which was an incredible feat. Despite technically it being a loss, Churchill described it as one of the greatest successes. In England, it is a lot more famous of a story than in Australia (I used to hear about it all the time as a kid) - it's one of those classic "British pride" stories, but in my opinion its a much more positive one, than say "American Sniper". Here is the trailer if you're interested - as I said, highly recommend it, both as a history buff, and a film student ;)
Never really thought about it this way as well! Now that I think about it, obviously museums and video games aren’t made by only one person and they aren’t really historians. I actually have no idea what my friends conclusions were. We had to present them to the class but I don’t do modern so I didn’t see hers and really wasn’t heaps interested at the time. I’m pretty sure, one of the main reasons she did it was to play video games :D. I might ask her after exams and get back to you.Fantastic! Yeah defs ask her, because I'd love to hear what she came up with :)
Never heard of macrohistory before-sounds really cool! What types of issues/concerns does it look at?An example of a macrohistorian would be someone like Yuval Noah Harari (he's the author of my all time, favourite book (and I'm including fiction works in this too), 'Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind').
Yeah, especially my two Camelot historians were really close to Kennedy and obviously this would have impacted their interpretations. What would you think if historians actually find Agrippina’s diaries? Would we consider them historical documents and her a historian or would there need to be more of a sense of personal detachment from this?Before history extension, I actually knew hardly anything about Kennedy, except for the assassination. I also know barely anything on US presidents so I can’t judge him well. I think he was trying to be a good person but some of the problems were caused by his incompetency and his youth as president. Not all of his actions were fantastic-The Bay of Pigs was pretty much a disaster (he relied a lot on his advisors at the time) and there are arguments that his actions led to American involvement in the Vietnam War. Kinda weird how influential the Camelot historians have been in shaping our views of Kennedy.Personally I wouldn't consider her a historian. It would be a historical document in the sense that it would be an official, historical source, however I would not go as far as to say she is a historian, because she wasn't writing about history, but her own life. It's history to us now, but it was very much her own experience (especially as they were diaries, and not a memoir). I studied the American presidents a fair amount last year in Modern history - particularly those during the Cold War era. I found my views of Kennedy greatly challenged by the course - particularly when we looked at the Bay of Pigs, but also his response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, whereby apparently he was an absolutely wreck mentally most of the time (though obviously quite understandably, considering it was a very tense period). Super interesting individual, who hopefully I'll get to learn about more one day.
Are all revisionist historians always critical of the initial interpretations? Do they write only to challenge the views of prior historians? Is this their initial hypothesis, which sounds really biased/subjective to me.Well, to be a revisionist, you kind of have to be (at least in my opinion). Though I am sure many revisionist historians have done a lot of research to back up their views, and it is genuinely their opinion based on evidence (and of course, their socio-philosophical/political context), I believe that there are many historians who write revisionist histories purely in order to be "alternative" - eg. Holocaust deniers are technically revisionists. Can you think of any reason why this might be the case?
Yeah, definitely stuff like his affair may have affected his precedency. We never got to study his affair in class. Out of the five topics we could have studied my class is doing Cuba, Kennedy and Khrushchev and Indochina. My teacher said that sometimes the essays on his private life aren’t as sophisticated as the ones that my class is doing. It would be really interesting though. :)Ahhh cool! Your teacher has picked some really interesting topics anyway, so I wouldn't feel too bad aha - we studied all of those topics last year during my Cold War unit in Modern History. Definitely some of the most interesting stuff - particularly Khrushchev, he's a real character.
For the “reclaim history” statement I think it was because he believed of a false narrative-however, there may be something more significant (not really sure).I think that he was a lot more balanced then the other historical schools that did write about Kennedy. While I think that he presents both side of the argument, he still uses some judgements about the event and isn’t truly 100% impartial.Thanks heaps again Susie! Don’t worry about my procrastination (this was heaps more fun!), also counting this as study for my extension exam on Tuesday! :DAhhh okay then :) Definitely something I would consider looking into though - may be a good way of finding some really interesting angle that you can incorporate into your essays to give you a bit more of an edge!
Hello humans of Extension HistoryHELLO!
for everyone doing Western Imperialism I suggest using Niall Ferguson. Whether or not you agree with what he says he is a really good example of one approach towards the topic.Hells yeah a Western Imperialism student!! Finally ;) And I totally agree, Niall Ferguson was one of my most frequently used historians, as he's both one that has some really really controversial opinions, but is still a fantastic historian as far as methodologies and writing is concerned. Though I wholeheartedly disagree with his assessment, he is definitely one of the best historians to use if you're a Western Imperialism student.
So for a question such as " 'History isn't really about the past. It is about how we engage with the past' To what extent does your engagement with historian's debate in your chosen case study reflect this view?"Yeah definitely! This is a super important issue, that particularly for such an emotionally charged and controversial issue as Western Imperialism, that still, most certainly has lasting social, political and economic impacts both in Britain and abroad would be highly critical to the way in which historians construct their histories.
I interpreted this question to be discussing a range of issues but I chose to talk about two one being; The restrictions of the historians prejudice and perspective.
From the question I suggested using the arguments that all historians choose to react and represent a perspective of history whether it be subconcious or concious.I love the addition of "subconcious or concious", as I think this is really important when it comes to not only Western Imperialism, but historiography in general! Though of course context and ideology is going to be impactful no matter what, I don't think there are many historian (many - not all) who go into writing history with the intent of say (in relation to Western Imperialism) justifying Brexit. Like I personally believe most historians truely do have good intentions (aha "good intentions", aha Schama ;) ), its just that good intentions don't change the inevitable - that ideology and context is all pervasive, inescapable and all consuming.
This is really important particularly to the statment "it is about how we engage with the past”(this was the CSSA trial for 2016). For this point I used the argument that Ferguson neglects the evidence and perspectives of the periphery, he often relies on official documents and sources such as diary entries of colonists.Love the link to methodologies here - defs one of the best (and easiest!) things to include in your essay, that so many people just seem to forget to do. I myself was guilty of neglecting it, as it was something that I just found boring, but in hindsight, I wish I used it more, as it is a really great, simple way to pull a part a historians ideas. In regards to Ferguson, you can link this to Empiricism and his "Top Down approach" to history!
This obviously impacts his argument as many of the critiques of Western Imperialism lie in their treatment of traditional peoples. Because of this Ferguson presents an image that is heavily economic and at times glorifies the work of Imperialists.One of the best quotes, that pretty much just sums up Ferguson's argument: “Once the British had come to Africa to stamp out slavery and spread Christianity, their motives for carving the continent up like a cake were very different. One-part economics, one-part grand strategy, no part altruism”.
His assesment of the impact of WI is generally positive he uses Exceptionalism and anecdotal or counterfactual history to represent colonialism.Again, great use of methodology here! Exceptionalism especially has some super interesting implications, especially in regards to today, whereby the UK something in this era that they haven't experienced for a very long time - not being the dominant world power. Potentially you can attribute this to Ferguson's commercial success as a historian - the nation is looking for a way to validate and regain their sense of "prestige" and "pride" - and that is achieved through a focus on their history as a "dominant" force.
For example he states in the first episode of his documentry "Empire; how Britain made the modern world" that "toady we live in a world dominated by a single superpower..the United States". Here Ferguson draws parralles to the 'superpowers' of the past and the leading economic position of many countries.exactly ;) As Ferguson is also pretty pro-America, this also has a lot of historiographical and political implications, as one could argue that through presenting a sympathetic, and even positive view of British imperial expansion, he is justifying American imperial expansion, through their mutual aim to spread Western ideals (in particular Capitalism).
From similar statements in his materials it is evident that he is almost warning America about the flaws of Great Britains ’superpower’ reign and not to make the same mistakes that brought it’s downfall . Here you could argue that perhaps America is not the leading economic power and look for the reasoning behind Fergusons position or you could move on. I chose not to rant and to move on.Interesting! Yeah I can definitely see how you could argue this as well - like "don't make the same mistakes we did" kinda thing! Great assessment. I mean, personally I would love to hear your rant ;) But also totes keen to hear your other arguments, so yes, lets move on shall we :)
The next bit I spoke about was the nature of the accessibilty of Ferguson's work.Yesssss fantastic point! Ferguson's works are definitely really accessible, in the sense that they are really well written and interesting to read, rather than being super dense. Like, they're exciting - take the chapter 'Maxim Force' for example, just so exciting and interesting, despite dealing with non-fiction issues, which many people (not me, and hopefully not many people here, but many people in general ;) ) find super boring. This links really well with something that you can actually discuss in Section I as well - the conflict between academic and "popular" history - because Ferguson is most definitely a popular historian. His documentary series as well is an excellent example of popular history, that airs early evening I believe, when most people are watching television in the UK. If you just look at the construction of his documentary as well - I mean the intro to the Maxim Force episode of his doco is literally an instrumental from a Dr Dre song aha (Fergy is down with da kids 8) ) - but the point I am making here is Ferguson understands popular culture and what sells, which has contributed to the success of his works.
This point could lead into the semiotics debate as suggested by Saussure however this requires alot of preparation and I know I didnt include it in my practice paper. The reason it is relevant is because Ferguson uses a lot of visual historical reconstruction in his documentries. Saussure's debate would argue (I think) that everything has different meanings to different people. And that despite the fact that there are patterns in symbols and at times symbols can universally accepted or seem obvious to some they still rely on context and as a result cannot always be counted as effective communiction. For example whereas some things may be intended to convey economic or military prowess other could percieve them to represent oppression. This relates to the Source statement " 'History isn't really about the past. It is about how we engage with the past’ because the evidence of past studied by previous historians is the evidence that we generally have. Therefore if it is misinterpreted or tampered with, especially through symbols it is easy to continue that legacy of misinterpretation.What a fantastic point! And one that I'm very sure that your teacher will like ;) Links well to this, not so academic-y example that I brought up a few months ago. You can find what I said in the spoiler :)
This week on 'Susie historiographically dissects a harmless video designed purely for entertainment purposes'....
I was scrolling through facebook today and I found this really funny, short video, on how the word "bitch" is actually one of the most multipurpose and "communicative" words in the english language! And like always, I decided to ruin the fun of the video by instead attempting to analyse it through the lens of Derrida/Foucault style linguistics ;) ;) ;)
Basically, I think a really interesting and important historiographical issue (that you can defs mention in your essays) is ever-changing, ever-subjective role of language - particularly written language. As the video suggests, a single word may have infinite meanings, a lot of which can be understood through facial expressions and vocal inflections. However, what happens when that similarly subjective word if written down on paper? We lose that ability to understand intent, which presents significant problems to history! What happens if, through language, we misinterpret the intent of the source? Or a historians work? In the on-going game of historical chinese whispers, the subjective role of language could literally change history.
For example - lets say someone was attempting to understand the relationship between two people from the past, lets call them Anna and Bea. We recover a bunch of facebook conversations between them, but they're disjointed (like most sources are). One message from Anna reads: "omg bitch I literally hate you." From just that one message, someone might interpret that as meaning they are archenemies, when in reality Anna may have been responding to finding out that Bea gets an extra week of holiday - the "bitch" and the "i hate you" more an indication of their friendship, as they are comfortable enough with each other to say that without fear of causing offence.
The above is obviously a very arbitrary example - but you get the point. To what extent does the nature of language itself limit our ability to construct an accurate history? Is history not only plagued by the subjectiveness of the historian in terms of their socio-philosophical context and beliefs, but furthermore the inescapable subjectiveness of its very foundations? Is there any way to get around this? Can you think of any other examples (maybe even actual historical examples) of the way in which language fails us?
Would love to hear your thoughts :)
Susie
I also read the first two chapters of John Vincent’s ‘An Intelligent person’s guide to History’ and I think John Vincent is really good for the evidence/historical engagement argument.Vincent ma boi.
His whole argument is about evidence and is as such is perfect for this question. Vincent states that history is all about evidence however he stresses the importance of written evidence for the sole reason that it survives. Here written evidence represents coins, epigraphy and any texts.Do you think there are any limitations to this? For example, there are some cultures (Aboriginal Australian culture I believe is a good example) that does not focus upon the written word to record their history and stories, but have a much stronger tradition of "oral history". Does focusing on written evidence mean that we compromise understanding the history of these cultures as well?
Although this is really important it ‘is an infinitesimal part’ of the past and as result is open to many flaws. One such flaw is that “history is about literate societies…tilted towards literate people’. This only represents in Vincent’s words ’the study of stable, hierarchical, agricultural, aristocratic and religious societies” and neglects anything outside that criterion.Yeah exactly! (i really need to start reading the full response because I start responding to sections aha)
For example take religious texts such as the Bible and the Qur’an and the impact they have had on societies. Whereas Vincent compares this to “hunting, nomadic, pastoral or gathering people’. This argument is crucial to the example of Western Imperialism as it addresses the obvious partiality towards certain types of history due to the lack of indigenous evidence in places such as Africa where societies had developed communication and historical techniques that did not rely on epigraphical or written sources.Yes, yes, yes!!! This was actually not a link that I made last year, and I was obsessed with Vincent's work. Smart cookie Lev ;) But yes, totally agree.
Obviously this isn't applicable to every question however I feel like these points could work for most evidence questionsFantastic work Lev DB! You raise some really fantastic arguments and some awesome points - had a lot of fun reading and dissecting. Good luck with your exam tomorrow!!! I'm sure you will absolutely smash it :) Be sure to come back and let us know how it went - and please, come back to this thread any time you want to test out an argument ;)
Personally, I don't believe that a textbook is a historical work, due to the fact that, as you said, there is not "unique" interpretation, it is just telling you what you need to know to satisfy the syllabus. On the surface, there is no judgement being made as to how and why, as that is something the student needs to develop themselves (though of course, we know as history extension students that bias is everywhere, even when it is not intended). At its core, a textbook is purely to educate within very strict parameters, whereas a historical work, in my opinion, extended beyond the typical parameters, in order to provide a new perspective!Yeah, I agree with this. :)
What do you think?
I LOVE how nitpicky you all are this is great! Excellent point, because we're all going to have a different interpretation of "consistent". For me, I think its the case that to be a historian, one should be researching/working towards the production of a piece of work at least to a "part-time" capacity. What I mean by this is dedicating roughly the amount of hours per-week that a part-time student or employee dedicates to their studies/work, to history (but beyond at a "student" level - what I mean is independent research and inquiry).Man-linguistics it’s really interesting but so annoying! I don’t know if we can have a definition that can fit everything perfectly and which is 100% accurate all of the time. I think that if we can have differing interpretations of singular words then how can we have one definition that we all interpret the same way.
However, I'm sure that this can be challenged. For example, if you had an individuals who worked on their history book very infrequently, but after 10 years finished and published a book. I would still consider them a historian. So the definition is still flawed.
However - do you think that matters? Do you think that a definition has to be completely and 100% accurate, all of the time? Or is it okay to be "mostly correct" with a few exceptions? What are the pros and cons of both?
Yeah Mary Beard is another fantastic example! As is Simon Schama's works.I would really love to visit Pompeii and Herculaneum. So, in that way I’d hate for it to be closed down. However, 2.5 million tourists at Pompeii and 500,000 at Herculaneum a year is a lot! About 6850 people a day on average in Pompeii! I think that maybe there should be parameters/restrictions on how many people can be at the site at one time. Personally, I would hate to be at Pompeii and have another almost 7000 people around me, in what is a fairly small site (I just compared its area to some of the towns near me and its tiny). Obviously with that many people at Pompeii, it would be difficult for artefacts not to be destroyed. And if even a small amount of the tourists grabbed a ‘souvenir’ of the site there would be so many small fragments missing. I think that it would be good for the site because tourists bring in a lot of money and public interest however there are so many negatives as well.
Very interesting article, thank you so much for bringing it up! Definitely historiographical don't worry. Particularly love the point that she is making here:
"Pompeii's job, actually, is to interest us in the ancient world. That's what it's there for.
And the very idea that somehow it should be so carefully preserved that only a load of academics, rich people and television cameras are allowed actually there, while 10km down the road we build a little mock-up for the plebs, is ghastly."
Kinda paradoxical in a way - tourists promote an interest in history, while at the same time destroying the remnants of history that attract such interest. I guess it comes down to what is most important - preserving interest today, or securing interest in the future. I feel like, though I understand Beard's argument that say if a house falls in Pompeii due to tourism that is not that big of a deal, as tourists promote an interest in history, and it is more important to preserve that, what if in that house were artefacts and archeological evidence, now destroyed, that would have also peaked peoples interests?Though I don't think they should shut the site away from "non-academics", it is a bit excessive, the way that tourists can just walk freely through the town, a town that in comparison to other sites and museums is poorly protected. And I think, in a way, playing devils advocate, is it better to restrict tourist access, and lend it only to academics and film crews, who can then produce more works on the issue, which can still fuel interest in history, but at the same time, protect the sites, which will allow historians to satisfy interests for a longer period of time? (hope this makes sense).
What's your opinion?
Dunkirk is about a real events that happened during WWII, whereby around 400 000 British soldiers were stranded and surrounded on a beach in France (Dunkirk). It was a pretty hopeless situation, and the Germans were picking off the soldiers from the air, and bombing/torpedo-ing all the large boats that came by to pick up the British soldiers and take them back home (which they really weren't that far away from - just across the Channel - something that many people swim across every year). What ended up happening is a lot of civilian boats were requisitioned by the army - like tiny fishing boats - to come and pick up the soldiers, and in some cases, civilians would actually be the ones manning the boats, risking their lives to come and help out the stranded soldiers - they ended up saving about 300 000 men, which was an incredible feat. Despite technically it being a loss, Churchill described it as one of the greatest successes. In England, it is a lot more famous of a story than in Australia (I used to hear about it all the time as a kid) - it's one of those classic "British pride" stories, but in my opinion its a much more positive one, than say "American Sniper". Here is the trailer if you're interested - as I said, highly recommend it, both as a history buff, and a film student ;)It looks so interesting! To be honest, the only thing I knew about the movie before this was that Harry Styles was in it. Isn’t it weird that I’ve never heard of Dunkirk before-like I could tell you heaps about Australia’s involvement in WW1 (especially Gallipoli), but nothing about Dunkirk.
An example of a macrohistorian would be someone like Yuval Noah Harari (he's the author of my all time, favourite book (and I'm including fiction works in this too), 'Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind').I’m going to have to add this to my ever-growing list of books to read after HSC. What do you like so much about it? Do you have any other great book (history related or otherwise) recommendations that I should read?
Macro historians don't deal with say, one historical period, time or issue, but more so deal with ALL of human history, trying to find patterns, links and themes that can be extrapolated, to explain more broader human events and issues. For example, Yuval Noah Harari identifies different "ages" in all of human history (literally from pre-homo sapiens to present day), rather than closely looking at each historical event, through identifying four "revolutions":I found this really interesting. I like his idea that the only reason humans cooperate with each other on such a wide scale is due to stories/imagination. At first I was a bit doubtful, but no animal besides humans would use money and our society revolves around money (and working to get more money). I’m not sure if we are covering this in class, however I might read up on more of this later. :D
The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BCE, when Sapiens evolved imagination).
The Agricultural Revolution (c. 12,000 BCE, the development of farming).
The unification of humankind (the gradual consolidation of human political organisations towards one global empire).
The Scientific Revolution (c. 1500 CE, the emergence of objective science).
If you'd like to hear more about Yuval Noah Harari and his thoughts and opinions, check out this Ted Talk that he did! Very interesting stuff.
Personally I wouldn't consider her a historian. It would be a historical document in the sense that it would be an official, historical source, however I would not go as far as to say she is a historian, because she wasn't writing about history, but her own life. It's history to us now, but it was very much her own experience (especially as they were diaries, and not a memoir). I studied the American presidents a fair amount last year in Modern history - particularly those during the Cold War era. I found my views of Kennedy greatly challenged by the course - particularly when we looked at the Bay of Pigs, but also his response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, whereby apparently he was an absolutely wreck mentally most of the time (though obviously quite understandably, considering it was a very tense period). Super interesting individual, who hopefully I'll get to learn about more one day.Ok, makes sense. So because this is such a personal text she hasn’t really researched anything and therefore she shouldn’t be considered a historian. It’s just her experiences and opinions about what has happened.
Well, to be a revisionist, you kind of have to be (at least in my opinion). Though I am sure many revisionist historians have done a lot of research to back up their views, and it is genuinely their opinion based on evidence (and of course, their socio-philosophical/political context), I believe that there are many historians who write revisionist histories purely in order to be "alternative" - eg. Holocaust deniers are technically revisionists. Can you think of any reason why this might be the case?Not too sure really. Some revisionist histories would definitely be more controversial then the initially accepted ideas which could lead to more publicity. Are they sometimes more dramatic? In the case of Kennedy, Hersh’s book is titled The Dark Side of Camelot (which is really overly dramatic). With my major, one of the historians (Goldhagen) wrote refuting the initials (Browning’s) hypothesis (he believed the book ‘failed in its central interpretation’). Goldhagen’s book ended up being criticized a lot more than Browning’s but gained international recognition. I don’t really know why you would want to deny the Holocaust though.
Ahhh cool! Your teacher has picked some really interesting topics anyway, so I wouldn't feel too bad aha - we studied all of those topics last year during my Cold War unit in Modern History. Definitely some of the most interesting stuff - particularly Khrushchev, he's a real character.Yeah, they are really cool and interesting!
Ahhh okay then :) Definitely something I would consider looking into though - may be a good way of finding some really interesting angle that you can incorporate into your essays to give you a bit more of an edge!I might research this more after trials! Would be cool to have some more unique information for my essays! :)
No worries! And yessss, good luck!! I'm sure you'll smash it :)Thanks heaps Susie!! :D
Susie
Hello hello hello! Long time no see ;) I have a question for y'all (the plan is one per week in the lead up to HSC!)Yay!! :)
I'm in the process of trying to learn more about Nazi Germany and WWII. Though I love love loved learning about Russia and the Cold War last year, I definitely feel as though not knowing much about Nazi Germany/WWII is a pretty big chunk of modern history that I just know hardly anything about! So I've started reading 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William L. Shirer. It's really good so far (about 100 pages in - only 900 to go :o ), but in particular I found the foreword of all things super interesting! You can read the whole thing here, but I particularly liked this extract;I find Nazi Germany/WW2 history really interesting :)! I know a lot more about it then Russian history.SpoilerSome may think that it is much too early to try to write a history of the Third Reich, that such a task should be left to a later generation of writers to whom time has given perspective. I found this view especially prevalent in France when I went to do some research there. Nothing more recent than the Napoleonic era, I was told, should be tackled by writers of history.
There is much merit in this view. Most historians have waited fifty years or a hundred, or more, before attempting to write an account of a country, an empire, an era. But was this not principally because it took that long for the pertinent documents to come to light and furnish them with the authentic material they needed? And though perspective was gained, was not something lost because the authors necessarily lacked a personal acquaintance with the life and the atmosphere of the times and with the historical figures about which they wrote?
In the case of the Third Reich, and it is a unique case, almost all of the documentary material became available at its fall, and it has been enriched by the testimony of all the surviving leaders, military and civilian, in some instances before their death by execution. With such incomparable sources so soon available and with the memory of life in Nazi Germany and of the appearance and behavior and nature of the men who ruled it, Adolf Hitler above all, still fresh in my mind and bones, I decided, at any rate, to make an attempt to set down the history of the rise and fall of the Third Reich.
“I lived through the whole war,” Thucydides remarks in his History of the Peloponnesian War, one of the greatest works of history ever written, “being of an age to comprehend events and giving my attention to them in order to know the exact truth about them.”
I found it extremely difficult and not always possible to learn the exact truth about Hitler’s Germany. The avalanche of documentary material helped one further along the road to truth than would have seemed possible twenty years ago, but its very vastness could often be confusing. And inall human records and testimony there are bound to be baffling contradictions.
No doubt my own prejudices, which inevitably spring from my experience and make-up, creep through the pages of this book from time to time. I detest totalitarian dictatorships in principle and came to loathe this one the more I lived through it and watched its ugly assault upon the human spirit. Nevertheless, in this book I have tried to be severely objective, letting the facts speak for themselves and noting the source for each. No incidents, scenes or quotations stem from the imagination; all are based on documents, the testimony of eyewitnesses or my own personal observation. In the half-dozen or so occasions in which there is some speculation, where the facts are missing, this is plainly labeled as such.
My interpretations, I have no doubt, will be disputed by many. That is inevitable, since no man’s opinions are infallible. Those that I have ventured here in order to add clarity and depth to this narrative are merely the best I could come by from the evidence and from what knowledge and experience I have had.
From having a read, I have two questions that I'd like you to discuss :)
1. Do you agree with Shirer's argument that you can write history on events in recent memory, or do you believe that a considerable amount of time should pass before attempting? Why/why not?
2. Shirer takes the time to outline his limitations, and warns us that their may be small flaws within the work due to his own prejudices, however that he has attempted, to the best of his ability to limit this. Why do you think he felt the need to do this - isn't the point of writing history to justify why your interpretation is the truth? Is that the point? Do you think that by including this warning within the foreword he is increasing the reliability of his work?
Keen to hear your thoughts!!
Susie
I believe that you can write history on events in recent memory, however only if and when there is a sufficient amount of evidence that a historian can work with (so they are not only going off personal recollection.) As Shirer explains of Nazi Germany, “almost all documentary material became available at its fall, and it has been enriched by the testimony of all the surviving leaders, military and civilian”, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t write with all of this available evidence (so much that he cannot read it all).
However, I believe that writing this soon after the event could impact on the historian’s objectivity. He would be impacted by his personal experiences of the terrible things that happened in WW2, much more so writing 15yrs afterwards then say writing after 200 years(if he had never experienced it himself). Although, as you have said he does acknowledge the existence of his own personal bias/prejudices wishing to limit them.
[...] However, often with the passage of time, a dispassionate tone arises in historians as they are able to take a step back from the atmosphere of the period and create a more holistic perspective of the past. Although not completely objective (history always has an element of bias) these historians are able to garner a wider view of history that is not tainted by public opinion (eg. America in mourning) or restrictive loyalties that can distort historical accounts.
Yay!! :)I find Nazi Germany/WW2 history really interesting :)! I know a lot more about it then Russian history.Going well so far! It is a bit dense, and takes a while to motivate myself to read it sometimes, but definitely feel like I am learning a lot!
I believe that you can write history on events in recent memory, however only if and when there is a sufficient amount of evidence that a historian can work with (so they are not only going off personal recollection.) As Shirer explains of Nazi Germany, “almost all documentary material became available at its fall, and it has been enriched by the testimony of all the surviving leaders, military and civilian”, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t write with all of this available evidence (so much that he cannot read it all).Interesting! That raises the question though as to when does an event become "history" versus "current affairs"? Though I wouldn't consider the holocaust "current affairs", or even events such as 9/11 to be current affairs, in todays day and age a lot of events have documentary evidence released almost instantaneously, due to the fact that the production of such materials is not only reserved from political/academic elite anymore, but to everyone that has a smart phone, camera or a computer, who can record the events in real time, post their opinion, or relay their story. Yes, many official government sources may not be released for some time depending on the event, but would be consider the 'The Making Of Donald Trump' by David Cay Johnston to be a work of history? I'm not really sure.
However, I believe that writing this soon after the event could impact on the historian’s objectivity. He would be impacted by his personal experiences of the terrible things that happened in WW2, much more so writing 15yrs afterwards then say writing after 200 years(if he had never experienced it himself). Although, as you have said he does acknowledge the existence of his own personal bias/prejudices wishing to limit them.I like the argument that you are making here, and mostly I agree with it! Definitely living through the events in question would have a significant implication upon the objectivity of the source. For example, I'm not going to trust 'the Making of the Third Reich' by Albert Speer to be objective in the slightest, even though if there is anyone who is going to know what was going on (despite his bogus plea of ignorance) it's going to be Hitler's supposed best friend.
What do you believe? Do you think there is a suitable time a historian needs to wait, what is it, and why?To be quite honest I'm unsure! I don't believe there should be a set time frame necessarily, and I think there are pros and cons for both writing soon after, and writing ages after... but yeah, but hang up comes with how we distinguish then between a historical event, and current affairs.
I think he felt the need to do this to tell the audience that to show that he isn’t trying to deceive them and write a 100% objective account as it is impossible for him to do. I think this slightly increases his reliability as it shows he is aware that he cannot be fully objective and will have some bias and prejudice throughout his work no matter how hard he tries. I believe that while interpretation is an important part of history, historians should try to aim for objectivity (as close as possible) so that the interpretation is valid and something that could have happened.What a good little relativist ;) Yeah I agree, I think that by acknowledging that his account can never be 100% objective, he is inviting, rather than dissuading people to do their own research as well, and to not take everything that one person says at face value!
Thanks heaps Susie! :D
1. Do you agree with Shirer's argument that you can write history on events in recent memory, or do you believe that a considerable amount of time should pass before attempting? Why/why not?OOOooooo interesting! Love a good debate with a source :)
I don't agree with Shirer's argument.
When writing history based on recent memory often emotions of the period are still fresh, loyalties to the personality or era you are discussing are very strong due to a historian's personal connection with the history itself and often a hagiographical writing of history arises that idolises a historical event in order to justify the creation of its history. This can be seen in the assassination of Martin Luther King and the mournful, biographical histories that arose. However, often with the passage of time, a dispassionate tone arises in historians as they are able to take a step back from the atmosphere of the period and create a more holistic perspective of the past. Although not completely objective (history always has an element of bias) these historians are able to garner a wider view of history that is not tainted by public opinion (eg. America in mourning) or restrictive loyalties that can distort historical accounts.
You make an interesting point, however I would argue that length of time doesn’t necessarily remove emotional attachment to a situation, and that this is an unavoidable problem. For example. people are still horrified at the effects of the volcanic eruption in Pompeii, even though it occurred in 79 A.D and they are removed from the situation. I think time doesn’t always help remove emotional resonance with an event, and that part of a historians struggle is being able to identify how their emotional attachment to a situation may affect their work. Another issue with being produced much later than the events in question, is important detail may be forgotten or left out.Hmmm, I'm not really sure. Are people horrified by the effects of the eruption of Mt Vesuvius? I'd say its more a sense of morbid curiosity if anything. Definitely not comparable to the emotional attachment to say the Holocaust, something that I think is evident by the fact that if I were to make a Pompeii meme that'd be acceptable, but a Holocaust one would not. I personally can't think of an example of the top of my head of an ancient event that would have the same emotional resonance tbh! Can you?
I would argue that a passage of time doesn’t always help remove an emotional or prejudiced connection to the period. Historians would still be drawing on sources from the time which are tainted by public opinion and still have to identify the prejudice in sources they use.Very good point! Reminiscent of some of John Vincent's talking points (many of which have been mentioned in this thread :) )
Also ‘restrictive loyalties’ to figures can still be present after a passage of time. Even 200 years later, a historian could still empathise and have respect for Martin Luther King, which would impact their work and could result in a similar ‘restrictive loyalty’ to someone writing 15 years after.I agree! Particularly for figures that invoke a significant level of nationalism/patriotism, eg. Captain Cook or Christopher Columbus!
Another example would be how an American historian writing about the Meiji Restoration of 1868 may still bring their nationalist ties to America when reviewing the period, despite not being attached to any prominent figures of the time. I still agree that writing a significant amount of time after cam remove some of the emotional or prejudiced connections, however many of these ties would still exists. Thus, even with a passage of time, historians perceptions still play a role in their work.Great argument! Some of the stuff I would have mentioned I've touched on in some of the earlier responses, so I recommend having a read through of those as well!
Hey guys!! Got another question for you all :)Yeah, I think I agree. When using evidence that is only to support their preconceived hypothesis a historian may not be getting the full picture and therefore invalidating some of their claims. However, a historian needs to select and put weight on their evidence as they can’t really include everything in their works. I don’t believe they are ‘deceiving’ themselves all of the time especially in this situation. So, I think that the selection of evidence may be slightly inevitable (not too sure though). I don’t really think that you can wrote history without a hypothesis. I think that you at least need to have a clear idea about what you want to write and research about.
What do you think of this quote by Margaret Margaret MacMillan? - "We can learn from history, but we can also deceive ourselves when we selectively take evidence from the past to justify what we have already made up our minds to do."
Do you agree? Or do you think that this is just an inevitable consequence of the study of history? Like, does this invalidate having a hypothesis? Can you write/study history without having a hypothesis?
Are there any examples that come to mind of situations where people have carefully selected evidence from the past in order to justify their preconceived understanding?Goldhagen/Browning. These were the historians I did in my major and both of them selectively decided to leave out certain evidence. They used the interrogations of Holocaust perpetrators when writing their books. Browning used evidence that was very self-incriminating as well as ones that were truthful only some of the time. Whereas Goldhagen only used the ones that were self-incriminating which also stemmed from his hypothesis that the Germans were evil/all of them were willing to murder the Jewish people.
Does her view align/relate to any other historians/historiographers that you have studied?To be honest, I can’t think of any at the moment-although I’m sure there are a few.
Also, try and relate this back to your case study for Section II of the exam!!Through all three school we can learn from history, however they have very different perspectives on the events with not one being truly objective. I think that this statement applies to all of my section 2 historians to some extent. However, while they all have selectively used their sources, some of the historians had a wider availability of evidence (e.g Post revisionists had a lot more available evidence then the Camelot school) as more was released later after Kennedy’s death and this would have influenced their interpretations of the events as well. Their different motivations/purposes for writing have also influenced their interpretations and the evidence they have used.
Interested to hear your thoughts :)
Susie
Hey guys!! Got another question for you all :)The first person that comes to mind in relation to a predetermined hypothesis is the Marxist historian Christopher Hill. Since he had already developed an ideological standpoint as strong/structured as Marxism, it's sort of inevitable that Hill's mind would already be made up about the English Revolution, particularly through his ideas about the influence of economic determinism. Because of this, even though Hill underwent the process of investigating sources and finding evidence like historians are meant to, his predetermined hypothesis would have significantly influenced the evidence he selected to reinforce these ideas. So essentially, instead of investigating the English Revolution and coming to a conclusion through his research, Hill's agenda from the beginning was to reinforce his ideological views.
What do you think of this quote by Margaret Margaret MacMillan? - "We can learn from history, but we can also deceive ourselves when we selectively take evidence from the past to justify what we have already made up our minds to do."
Do you agree? Or do you think that this is just an inevitable consequence of the study of history? Like, does this invalidate having a hypothesis? Can you write/study history without having a hypothesis? Are there any examples that come to mind of situations where people have carefully selected evidence from the past in order to justify their preconceived understanding? Does her view align/relate to any other historians/historiographers that you have studied?
Also, try and relate this back to your case study for Section II of the exam!!
Interested to hear your thoughts :)
Susie
Hey guys!! Got another question for you all :)I'm just a rookie History Extension student (had my first lesson today) but I couldn't resist in joining in a discussion with one of my favourite historians!
What do you think of this quote by Margaret Margaret MacMillan? - "We can learn from history, but we can also deceive ourselves when we selectively take evidence from the past to justify what we have already made up our minds to do."
Do you agree? Or do you think that this is just an inevitable consequence of the study of history? Like, does this invalidate having a hypothesis? Can you write/study history without having a hypothesis? Are there any examples that come to mind of situations where people have carefully selected evidence from the past in order to justify their preconceived understanding? Does her view align/relate to any other historians/historiographers that you have studied?
hey hey historiographers! Just came across this very interesting donald trump related article, which I thought you might be keen to give a read!Interesting read
Alt-history? Trump claims US won two World Wars & defeated communism]https://www.rt.com/usa/412570-trump-us-won-world-wars/]Alt-history? Trump claims US won two World Wars & defeated communism
What do you think? Any interesting historiographical issues you can think of in relation to Trumps "alternative history". Is it even history? Is this a case of "history is written by the winners"? Were the US winners? Is there any semblance of truth to his claim? Do you think Trumps position affords him with the authority to decide what is history? And if so/not - why?
Keen to hear your thoughts :)
Susie
Interesting readYou wouldn't be the only one ;)
Honestly, i just facepalm myself when i hear anything said by trump
The main issue is really the fact that WHAT HE SAID IS NOT TRUE. It is alternative history, not what happened.Broadly agree with this, but the point of this thread is to pick apart everything, even the things that we "know" to be true soooooo...
It's not history, there is only one history and that is the one that we know occured.Have to disagree with you here! There is only one past, but there are multiple histories. Kind of connected to my earlier point, but history is essentially just how a historian interprets sources, each interpreting it through their own unique contextual lens. Yes, Trumps lens is overt, but that doesn't mean that other "reputable" historians don't have a distorted view of the past as well, that is why there is still so much debate within history - consensus on what exactly happened is a very rare thing, even amongst historians who are well researched!
History is written by the winners, trump is not a winner. America is only a partial winner.Interesting point! Do you think this is just isolated to America though, or do other countries inflate their involvement also... namely Australia. The ANZAC myth is still a hotly debated phenomenon within historiography. Though I don't think many would try to downplay the sacrifices of those who fought of Gallipoli, or other front lines during WW1, the legacy of the ANZACS is believed by many to be more of a construct than a reality, and in comparison to other nations, their overall impact on the war was limited. An interesting read on the topic.
Yes they were part of the allies in ww1 and the allies did win ww1. Yes they did fight in ww2 and ensured that Japan focused the majority of its efforts on america, so they did not directly assist Hitler in conquering Europe and they did provide indirect military support to the allies in ww2 and assisted in D day counter attacks (honestly, by the time d day rolled around-the rest of the allies could've probably won without amiercas help in europe)
But in ww1, you didn't come into the war until Germany was on its last legs. Same in ww2.
OTHER PEOPLE DID THE MAJOIRTY OF THE WORK, NOT YOU.
Thats like two people have a fight and beat the absoloute crap out of each other and then someone else who just happens to be passing by, runs up and throws a knockout punch at one of them.Nice work, but you didn't actually help that much. Who threw this knockout punch *cough* the USA *cough*Are there any other reasons you can think of as to why history is always written by winners?
So that is my arguement for the US being partial winners. But history is always written by the winners, because if the losers write it, they just admit to the harsh realities that come with losing all over again, and no one likes admitting they lost heaps.
AND NO, YOU DIDN'T BRING COMMUNISM TO ITS KNEES. THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS REALIISTICALLY DESGINED TO FAIL.Oh my man if you want a debate you got one right there you are talking to someone who has a poster of Lenin above their bed 😂
The only fully working example today is Cuba. Historically, communist countries don't fare too well after a while.True, however it is a more nuanced issue than "communism is designed to fail". It's important to recognise that these nations weren't rich, bountiful nations to begin with - communism didn't make them poor, they were poor already from the inequity of the (mostly) feudal systems that existed before it. Also, what is another common thread uniting these "failed" communist countries - US/Western intervention, either militarily, or economically. This is actually accounted for in Trotsky's marxist theories, particularly Permanent Revolution which says that it is impossible for a communist system to be sustained in a capitalist world, thus a worldwide revolution is necessary.
On paper, communism looks fine, but in reality its designed to bring itself to its knees. China's also communist too (ummm kinda?). So no, communism is alive and kicking.But can't you say the same about capitalism? All systems are designed to fail, if you take into account the interpenetration of opposites (this is actually what I did for my major work :)) Essentially, what makes a system succeed is what promotes its failure. Capitalism is based around the concepts of the free market, where everyone theoretically has equal opportunity to enter and become part of the "competition" (this doesn't take into account that not everyone starts on even playing field but anyway). The company that "wins", or makes more of a profit/greater market share is then given more resources to continue succeeding, while limiting others ability to succeed, forming monopolies, which go against the aims of capitalism. In this way, Woolies, Coles, Apple, Telstra, etc. are examples of the failures of capitalism. On paper, capitalism looks great - but in reality? ;) (I will stop now this is not history extension I'm just very passionate about the failure of capitalism ahaha)
BY THE WAY, YOUR POSITION DOES NOT AFFORD YOU THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHAT IS HISTORY.What do you think about Bill Gates using his money to promote 'Big History' (the historical concept of David Christian) as a part of the school curriculum in America - meaning that every child has to study and learn it as the "official history", even though it is just one interpretation. Do you think this is a good or bad thing?
No singular person has the power to do that.
Dear TrumpHave to agree with you there! And really well done, especially for a non-history extension student. Hope to see you around here more ;)
You're just a child in an adults body.
Grow the hell up
-Spoken from a non history extension student who enjoys debating
History, is what happened. To a degree. I think it differs for different periods because with more modern stuff, there is primary sources and eyewitness accounts etc that are document that can validate what really happened mostly. The further back in the time you go, the more and more history is left to interpretation. So yes, this is trumps interpretation, but its wrong. We know what happened in the world wars, its been documented and analysed so much, we might not agree on every single little thing. But we can safely say that he is just wrong. Yes we can reach a objective historical interpretation. When looking at more modern events (like the world wars) we can make a sound judgement of what really happened. Alot of stuff i look at (sources etc) seem to more or less say the same things. But i still would say im somewhat a relativist 8)
is history what actually happened? Or is it just an interpretation of what happened? In which case, can it not be argued that this is just Trump's interpretation of events? Do you believe we can reach an objective historical interpretation? In my opinion, all history is interpretation, as EH Carr states "interpretation is the lifeblood of history". I believe this, because I accept a relativist position (with some postmodernist tendencies but I haven't fallen down the rabbit hole completely ;) )
Have to disagree with you here! There is only one past, but there are multiple histories. Kind of connected to my earlier point, but history is essentially just how a historian interprets sources, each interpreting it through their own unique contextual lens. Yes, Trumps lens is overt, but that doesn't mean that other "reputable" historians don't have a distorted view of the past as well, that is why there is still so much debate within history - consensus on what exactly happened is a very rare thing, even amongst historians who are well researched!Okay now that you explain it like that, i do agree with you
Interesting point! Do you think this is just isolated to America though, or do other countries inflate their involvement also... namely Australia. The ANZAC myth is still a hotly debated phenomenon within historiography. Though I don't think many would try to downplay the sacrifices of those who fought of Gallipoli, or other front lines during WW1, the legacy of the ANZACS is believed by many to be more of a construct than a reality, and in comparison to other nations, their overall impact on the war was limited. An interesting read on the topic.I enjoyed that article, very good to read. Its not just isolated to America. Other countries like to inflate themselves in order to sound "cooler" and cover up the more negative sides of things. I think this is a reason why history is so debated. Because countries like to beef themselves up, they leave out important details OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. These "national myths" are absolutely a bad thing. It shits me (I REALLY HATE IT) when people, groups, countries do anything that covers up the truth. I ABSOLUTELY HATE IT. It's not what happened. Tell the damn truth, don't play it up.
Do you think these national myths or legends are a good thing, or a bad thing?
Are there any other reasons you can think of as to why history is always written by winners?Well, now that i think about it, to build on the above point, history is both written by the winners and losers. Everyone writes it. Its just that some people use these "national myths" and try to beef up their stories so they sound way more cooler and heroic. Both winners and losers do it. Losers do it to save face, winners do it to make them seem even better. So the written history is both written by winners and losers, its just not what actually happened.
Oh my man if you want a debate you got one right there you are talking to someone who has a poster of Lenin above their bed 😂LETS DO IT-ADAM VS SUSIE.
True, however it is a more nuanced issue than "communism is designed to fail". It's important to recognise that these nations weren't rich, bountiful nations to begin with - communism didn't make them poor, they were poor already from the inequity of the (mostly) feudal systems that existed before it. Also, what is another common thread uniting these "failed" communist countries - US/Western intervention, either militarily, or economically. This is actually accounted for in Trotsky's marxist theories, particularly Permanent Revolution which says that it is impossible for a communist system to be sustained in a capitalist world, thus a worldwide revolution is necessary.You make a very valid point!
There are definitely flaws with communism which make its implementation difficult (ie. reliance of a surplus), but the failures of communist systems is more than just the failures of the ideology.
But can't you say the same about capitalism? All systems are designed to fail, if you take into account the interpenetration of opposites (this is actually what I did for my major work :)) Essentially, what makes a system succeed is what promotes its failure. Capitalism is based around the concepts of the free market, where everyone theoretically has equal opportunity to enter and become part of the "competition" (this doesn't take into account that not everyone starts on even playing field but anyway). The company that "wins", or makes more of a profit/greater market share is then given more resources to continue succeeding, while limiting others ability to succeed, forming monopolies, which go against the aims of capitalism. In this way, Woolies, Coles, Apple, Telstra, etc. are examples of the failures of capitalism. On paper, capitalism looks great - but in reality? ;) (I will stop now this is not history extension I'm just very passionate about the failure of capitalism ahaha)Like i said before, all political systems inherently suck in some form. I hate parts of all of them
What do you think about Bill Gates using his money to promote 'Big History' (the historical concept of David Christian) as a part of the school curriculum in America - meaning that every child has to study and learn it as the "official history", even though it is just one interpretation. Do you think this is a good or bad thing?Well kids should learn something, so i believe it should be the most agreed upon, least debated on "official history"
Have to agree with you there! And really well done, especially for a non-history extension student. Hope to see you around here more ;)Well thankyou,i look forward to continuing this discussion with you! :)
Susie
Jessus, you really picked apart my statement :oThat's the point of this thread aha, don't take it personally ;)
Okay so here goes my reply...History, is what happened. To a degree. I think it differs for different periods because with more modern stuff, there is primary sources and eyewitness accounts etc that are document that can validate what really happened mostly.But are these primary sources and eyewitness accounts not still subjective? Aren't they still imbued with, or at the very least influenced, by personal prejudices, ideology and agenda? People may not be actively attempting to lie or falsify information - they may write what they believe to be true, but what they believe will always be clouded by their worldview. An American source in the 1960s will most likely have a very different interpretation of the Cold War than a Russian source of the same time. Even supposedly "official documents" can be misleading, often excluding many sectors of society that aren't considered at the time to be as valuable. The Keith Windschuttle/Henry Reynolds debate is a great example of this, as Keith Windschuttle minimises the suffering of Indigenous Australians on the basis that there is limited "official" evidence that massacres and genocides took place.
The further back in the time you go, the more and more history is left to interpretation. So yes, this is trumps interpretation, but its wrong. We know what happened in the world wars, its been documented and analysed so much, we might not agree on every single little thing. But we can safely say that he is just wrong.I too believe that some interpretations are more valid than others (and that trumps interpretation definitely lacks A LOT of substance), and this will be based on how much research and evidence there is to back up an interpretation. Though I do believe history is interpretative, I don't believe they can be baseless. Like "Cleopatra was born in 1800" is not an interpretation, as there is no evidence to back it up.
Yes we can reach a objective historical interpretation. When looking at more modern events (like the world wars) we can make a sound judgement of what really happened. Alot of stuff i look at (sources etc) seem to more or less say the same things. But i still would say im somewhat a relativist 8)(unsure as to whether you still stand by this point after your next one but oh well still going to respond to it because it may help out some other history extension students!)
I enjoyed that article, very good to read. Its not just isolated to America. Other countries like to inflate themselves in order to sound "cooler" and cover up the more negative sides of things. I think this is a reason why history is so debated. Because countries like to beef themselves up, they leave out important details OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. These "national myths" are absolutely a bad thing. It shits me (I REALLY HATE IT) when people, groups, countries do anything that covers up the truth. I ABSOLUTELY HATE IT. It's not what happened. Tell the damn truth, don't play it up.Playing devils advocate here (because again, thats the whole point of this thread ;) ) are national myths always a bad thing? I mean, of course they definitely CAN be bad (eg. fuelling nationalism and ethnocentrism such as was seen in Nazi Germany), but can they ever produce positive results? For example, is the ANZAC myth that was mentioned actually a bad thing? Isn't it promoting unity of the Australian people, and positive values such as bravery and mateship? Or, for example under Indira Ghandi, when she used a manipulated version of history (not necessarily false, but definitely manipulated) in order to help rebuild India after British colonisation. What do you think is more important - the truth, or greater happiness/peace/political stability? Interesting thought :)
Well, now that i think about it, to build on the above point, history is both written by the winners and losers. Everyone writes it. Its just that some people use these "national myths" and try to beef up their stories so they sound way more cooler and heroic. Both winners and losers do it. Losers do it to save face, winners do it to make them seem even better. So the written history is both written by winners and losers, its just not what actually happened.Really nice points here, which I definitely agree with! There are definitely motives from behind winners and losers versions of the past. For example, the American retelling of Vietnam downplays what an utter failure the venture was for them. Great points :)
LETS DO IT-ADAM VS SUSIE.bring it 8) 8) 8)
THE DEBATE OF THE CENTURY 😂😂
You make a very valid point!Definitely agree that it is in part fear based, however I think it is also ideologically motivated. As historian John Lewis Gaddis says "Both [Russia and the United States during the Cold War] embraced ideologies with global aspirations: what worked at home, their leaders assumed, would also do so for the rest of the world.” It's not just the fear of losing power, its the aim to spread and consolidate. During the Cold War, the United States adopted the Containment policy, first introduced through the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. These plans aimed to help "oppressed countries" fighting against communist invasion through military and monetary aid. However, in order to gain this help, they had to trade with the United States, thus adopting capitalism and forming the basis for the economic imperialism that the US is famous for (imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism after all ;) )
I do agree that countries that went communist weren't actuallty great to start off with.
The intervention is to do with the fear that capitalist nations have of communism. They fear change, and because communism is essentially about everyone being equal-no one has more power then anyone else. Higher up capitalists (bourgeois) are afraid of losing their power and wealth that they already have. So they seek to squash it in order to maintain their positions of wealth.
I tend to hate quite a few things within every political idealogy-they all suck in some way shape or form.
Like i said before, all political systems inherently suck in some form. I hate parts of all of themAhahaha only if it relates to historiography ;)
Perhaps we should just debate politics? 😂
Well kids should learn something, so i believe it should be the most agreed upon, least debated on "official history"Still don't believe that an "official" most agreed upon history exists (beyond lower order facts), particularly when it comes to school curriculums! Typically they're way more geared towards national history (and thus, national narratives/myths). For example, if you were to look at textbooks from Japan vs. America, you would find that their "official" history of Pearl Harbour and Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be VERY different. The "official" history tends to be the history most convenient for the time. For example, under Stalin, the "official" history completely erased Trotsky from the picture - that was the "official" history, and was what most people "agreed" upon. Yes, I know that Stalinist Russia is a more extreme example, but that doesn't mean that even countries we deem "normal" are anything close to that (again, America = prime example. Probably one of the weirdest countries on the planet).
Although (and i can't pinpoint why) this influencing to teach a particular interpretation of history, just because its the one you believe and because you have money, just really does not sit well with me at all.
Well thankyou,i look forward to continuing this discussion with you! :)Me to! God why aren't you doing extension!?
I just really enjoy debating
So I don't really know much (or have my own ideas down pat) so I'm attempting to get down my own ideas even if they don't make much sense.Hey! Welcome to Atar Notes!! ;D
My beliefs on objectivity (in lovely dot point form):
- I believe it is impossible to achieve objectivity within history as-
~ well obviously, it is impossible for us to escape our own biases
~ views on what objectivity is are fluid and change over time - what is accepted as a norm now may not have been at the time a source was created so to view it 'objectively' would still be viewing it differently to how a person from when the source originates might have and hence cant really be objective?I don’t think we can be objective when viewing the past from the present (present-minded history) as some societies are very different to ours and in some circumstances it is difficult for us to view them without judging them.
~ also like not even something that is accepted as historical fact can truly be objective unless it is stated to someone who has never interacted with the world and thus has no biases (what). Like with Hatshepsut, the fact that 'Hatshepsut was a female pharoah' cannot be grasped without the grasper pressing their own interpretation on it to understand? Honestly don't even know what I'm thinking rnHistory is made up of both lower and higher order facts. The facts known as lower order facts don’t need an interpretation and are difficult to argue against (mainly the who, what,when,where)-e.g we know that there were pharaohs, we know that (and when/where) WW2 happened. However, history is a lot more concerned with the higher order facts (the interpretative, subjective responses to an event/personality). E.g: ‘Was Hatshepsut an effective Pharaoh?’, ‘Why did the Holocaust occur?’ These higher order facts/questions can be influenced by the historians context/beliefs and therefore cannot be objective.
~ even if a piece of historical writing could somehow achieve objectivity, the consumers of the piece would still enter with their own biases and thus press subjectivity onto the piece in place of the historian (though audiences do this even when a historian is also subjective)Everything we do is motivated by our ideologies, beliefs, values and opinions on certain issues. Susie showed me this clip from Slavoj Zizek's 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology' which shows how our perception of reality is influenced by our ideologies. This can also impact the way historians, actors and producers have interpreted and produced our history.
~ even if objectivity could be obtained from the study of sources devoid of analysis (empirical approach? honestly I have no idea lol), all the sources about an event or time period will never be found, meaning that the history would always be missing certain viewpoints and hence could not be truly objective?Definitely agree with this point. We will never be able to find all of the sources from a particular time period, either they may have disappeared or been destroyed (possibly by political enemies/weathering,etc).
Like i said, I don't really have my own views plotted out and am just trying to properly solidify them.Great work!! Hope to see you around this thread/ forum more! :D
This thread is in some sad need of repair :DI'd love for this thread to be brought back! I still believe discussion is 100% the most useful thing you can do in history extension. The original intention was for it to be more student driven, do you have anything you want to discuss? :)
I'd love for this thread to be brought back! I still believe discussion is 100% the most useful thing you can do in history extension. The original intention was for it to be more student driven, do you have anything you want to discuss? :)Not really. I just love this thread, it is absolutely my favourite one to read. When I have a spare 10 minutes I often read it just to get some more perspectives than my own narrow ones. I'm very shy and don't like disagreeing with people at all (I don't know why I do Ext History then) so just really love re-reading the thread and would love to see more of it :D
Not really. I just love this thread, it is absolutely my favourite one to read. When I have a spare 10 minutes I often read it just to get some more perspectives than my own narrow ones. I'm very shy and don't like disagreeing with people at all (I don't know why I do Ext History then) so just really love re-reading the thread and would love to see more of it :DSo glad you enjoy the thread!! I really encourage you to give it ago, reading is great, but you can't just read in the exam :) this thread is a great way for you to practice your own ideas! No need to be shy, nobody will judge you or your opinions, or for disagreeing with their own as that is the whole point of this thread :) Even if you don't personally disagree, try and work out why someone might disagree! :)
Here's an interesting subject I think is discussion worthy:What's your opinion? :)
Captain James Cook is probably one of the most controversial figures in Australian history. Yet the Budget just revealed that they will be spending $48.7 million over the four years to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Captain Cook landing in Botany Bay.
Considering how the Statue Wars started last year with a graffitied word 'genocide' on Cook's statue, do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not? If you don't, do you think the government should be investing money commemorating Australian historical figures in the first place or do you think commemoration is important?
Hopefully, this kicks the debate thread back into action :)
What's your opinion? :)I kinda view this move as a way for the government to promote nationalism, i.e. the Three Cheers view. Personally, I'd rather see the money be funded in other areas, such as helping returned soldiers re-settle into society, or improve Aboriginal welfare (there was an article that I saw about how one of the reasons why drug abuse is so prominent amongst the Aboriginal community is because it's relatively cheap). Considering how they want to 'educate the new generation of Australians on the world-changing voyage of Captain Cook’s Endeavour,' shouldn't they be changing the curriculum to a more nuanced version of history? Coming from personal experiences and reflecting on my experiences in junior school history, I would say approximately 90% of the history curriculum is focusing on the Anzacs and the First Fleet. We get a vague understanding on how the Aboriginals suffered, but not in the greatest detail.
Hello all,Hey,
Regarding the finding of Cook's statue, personally i feel that the money would be used to improve the education system's presentation of Australian history allowing for a broader and potentially more accurate representation to future generations.
However, governments are inherently influenced by political and social agendas, and with the Cook statue, i personally think that it was done to, as owidjaja stated, 'promote nationalism'. More importantly, it has the potential to unite Australians under this one figure who is regarded as important and respected (generally speaking) as an Australian icon by people regardless of their political opinions whereas the government is seen through a more partisan lens. So while Cook may not be the first to discover Australia and while the construction of this statue glorifies the wrong people, i can see why the government would dunk so much money into it. That said, i do think it should have been diverted into other areas but it wouldn't be as showy or have the same social effect as a $49 million statue.Yeah, I agree with this that it is a form of Nationalism. I think that Captain Cook is ingrained into our culture (and to some extent our identity) through our education.
Regarding the recognition of oral history, i think it does need to be used more broadly in history. Though i did study the Reynolds v Windschuttle debate in class, the majority of my experience with this issue came through my major work which focused on Early 20th century Africa. Similar to the Aboriginal Australians and their tradition, many native African cultures lacked any written communication, couple that with the lack of formal educational opportunities during that period for native Africans and you have yourself a lack of histories/sources which explore that unique and important perspective.I think that oral history should be used as a legitimate form of source. I definitely think that we 100% can’t just invalidate/write off entire cultures because their traditions and construction of history/use of oral evidence is different to ours. I believe that any source is flawed-just because something is written down doesn’t make it heaps more reliable. For example, Pliny the younger wrote his account of the eruption of Pompeii 10 years after it had actually happened, however he was one of the only key witnesses of the event who wrote about it.
Building upon the statement by Owidjaja about the exploration of memory in history, i find that oral or more personal accounts of the past tend to be infused with emotion which is really insightful if you're trying to understand what people went through. i went on a school excursion to a Jewish museum where we were given a lecture by a historian studying the Holocaust. I apologise for not being able to recall her name but she talked about an account by a Polish Holocaust survivor and how the Nazis executed members of the survivor's town on a freezing winters day. Through some more research, a newspaper was found from the area where the execution took place and it revealed that it was one of the hottest summer days that town had for a few years. So while oral accounts, particularly ones which come from someone who had been personally affected by the event, may not be historically accurate, it does help in providing insight into this period of their lives and the event from a personal perspective.I went to the Jewish museum in year 10 as an excursion and also did my major on the Holocaust. My question was looking at 2 conflicting interpretations of the perpetrator motivations of Police Battalion 101 during the Holocaust. Regarding oral sources, one of my historian’s major piece of evidence was testimonies from Holocaust perpetrators. One of the issues with this was determining which ones were true because obviously they may have been lying (the actions they had committed were horrific & were filled with so many emotions). One of my historians, Goldhagen only chose to use information that was self-incriminatory all of the time. However, my other historian, Browning, used evidence that was self-incriminatory, and ones that told the truth some of the time. They both left out testimonies that were obviously untruthful. (a little off topic, bit still interesting!)
So thats my two cents on this topic. Hopefully it provides a different perspective, feel free to argue or build upon it!Thanks for sharing your opinions! Was great to read them!! ;D Feel free to argue against, build upon or pick apart what I’ve written! I haven’t done history since last year so could definitely be a bit rusty (& a little jumbled/off topic at times!). Otherwise, I would love to hear your opinions on anything Susie has brought up earlier in the thread or your own debate ideas! If you have any questions on navigating the forums, feel free to ask or message me! :D
The way I see it there are historians (contribute to historical knowledge); students of history (your Yr 7 students for example; at best they simulate the work of historians) and history enthusiasts (engage with the past as a hobby, entertainment, commodity). These overlap too.
Hey guys,Not a history ext student, but i'll put this out there...
I know that this debating thread has been inactive for a while but I came across something interesting on Twitter. So a history teacher has asked "Who can be a historian" and there have been a lot of interesting opinions in the thread. Australian historian Michael Molkentin's response caught my eye:
So what do you guys think? Are we history students historians? Do you need to contribute to historical knowledge to be a historian? (Hopefully, this Twitter thread also helps you come up with your own arguments/ideas for this coming exam)
Hey guys,
I know that this debating thread has been inactive for a while but I came across something interesting on Twitter. So a history teacher has asked "Who can be a historian" and there have been a lot of interesting opinions in the thread. Australian historian Michael Molkentin's response caught my eye:
So what do you guys think? Are we history students historians? Do you need to contribute to historical knowledge to be a historian? (Hopefully, this Twitter thread also helps you come up with your own arguments/ideas for this coming exam)
Hey guys,
I know that this debating thread has been inactive for a while but I came across something interesting on Twitter. So a history teacher has asked "Who can be a historian" and there have been a lot of interesting opinions in the thread. Australian historian Michael Molkentin's response caught my eye:
So what do you guys think? Are we history students historians? Do you need to contribute to historical knowledge to be a historian? (Hopefully, this Twitter thread also helps you come up with your own arguments/ideas for this coming exam)
I do think that we, as students, are historians, because we are actively seeking to learn about the past and analyse it. We may be called 'academic historians', because we are studying institutionalised history, but also it can probably argued that we're not academic historians.Hmm not sure if I agree with you there! I would argue that we as students are on the pathway of being historians since we're learning about the protocols of history (e.g. source analysis, citing our sources etc.) but I wouldn't say we're completely historians because the content we learn are limited to the syllabus- the syllabus being created by NESA/government. Because of that, what we learn is dependent on what the government learns. I'm not sure about other schools, but in primary school, we always learnt about the Anzac legend every year and in junior school, we always learnt about the role of Australians in WW1 and WW2. Even though in Year 11/12 syllabus we learn get to chose what to learn, there are still some gaps in what we study. For example, we don't learn about the role of the Japanese in WW1 which means that we won't get to have a wider perspective on WW1.
I think that with the creation of our major History Projects, we are indeed producers of history.I would agree with you here- I think there's a difference between historians and historical producers. Anyone can be a historical producer (e.g. filmmakers, politicians) but I personally think that the criteria as a historian would be a bit more strict and unfortunately elite.
I also think that, if people like David Irving (who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence") can be known as a legitimate historian, then who's to say we can't be?I'm not sure about Irving being a legitimate historian. I would identify him as a historian because of his rigorous research but I would classify him as a discredited historian because of misrepresenting and manipulating evidence, which is a breach of the protocols in being a historian.
Not a history ext student, but i'll put this out there...I would agree with you here! I think that what we learn in history is what enables us to start our pathway as a historian.
We are like apprentices. We're not full on historians but by engaging with the past as students of history, we're halfway there
I think that anyone who investigates, interprets and constructs a history (consciously or subconsciously) is a historian!I would partially agree with you here- I think those who investigates, say family history, are more like history enthusiasts/historical producers rather than historians. It kinda goes back to whether we history students are historians. Personally, I think we're history enthusiasts who are interested in learning and appreciating the past.
Historians are responsible for creating a particular version of events - Anyone can do this (though most do it in an 'informal' manner).I do agree with you here because different historians produce different versions of the past. Whether you're a postmodernist or not, historians always include different ideas, approaches, meanings to the past.
I think the debate should be more about who are 'academic historians' - I think that's a hard question! ;DI mean, it could be about 'academic historians' :D The question is a bit broad so we could discuss what makes an 'academic historian'. The Twitter thread was supposed to be used as a source to stimulate some ideas :)
Heyyyy guys! Don't mind this lonely Victorian history student crashing the thread ;) our hums boards are like ghost towns. And I don't know how HSC extension history works so I'm just randomly throwing my opinion around.
Anyway, regarding the topic, I don't think anyone can be classified a historian. IMO, to be a historian you have to have some background in studying history, but most importantly you have to bring something new to the table while acknowledging different sides of debates and the fact that history is never 100% objective. I think that at our level, as high school history students, most of us are mainly studying the facts - who, what, when, where, how, and why. We're seeing history through the lenses of historians, but mostly none of us can bring in new ideas at this stage. Even when we write source analysis or essays, where we're asked to present our own ideas, we're still mainly drawing from what we've learnt in a textbook.
There's definitely a distinction between someone who is interested in history and someone who investigates every aspect of it. As students I think at the moment we're merely representative of those who have an interest in the field, and who knows? Maybe one day we could become historians. I definitely agree with you on the fact that we're on the pathway of being historians. However achieving such title takes time and effort and it's not something anyone can call themselves. In my opinion, I think that calling students like us historians discredits those who actually spend years of their lives in research. 'Historian' is a title that should be earned.
Hey guys,Hey,
I know that this debating thread has been inactive for a while but I came across something interesting on Twitter. So a history teacher has asked "Who can be a historian" and there have been a lot of interesting opinions in the thread. Australian historian Michael Molkentin's response caught my eye:
So what do you guys think? Are we history students historians? Do you need to contribute to historical knowledge to be a historian? (Hopefully, this Twitter thread also helps you come up with your own arguments/ideas for this coming exam)
Can I just say thank you guys for contributing to the debate thread :) Trying to revive the debate thread so we can discuss/debate/share ideas (considering how our exam is this coming Friday)Thank you for trying to revive the thread!! ;D Feel free to pick my comments apart! :)
Heyyyy guys! Don't mind this lonely Victorian history student crashing the thread ;) our hums boards are like ghost towns. And I don't know how HSC extension history works so I'm just randomly throwing my opinion around.Welcome fellow Victorian! Great seeing you here :)
Anyway, regarding the topic, I don't think anyone can be classified a historian. IMO, to be a historian you have to have some background in studying history, but most importantly you have to bring something new to the table while acknowledging different sides of debates and the fact that history is never 100% objective. I think that at our level, as high school history students, most of us are mainly studying the facts - who, what, when, where, how, and why. We're seeing history through the lenses of historians, but mostly none of us can bring in new ideas at this stage. Even when we write source analysis or essays, where we're asked to present our own ideas, we're still mainly drawing from what we've learnt in a textbook.I would agree with you, to a partial extent. I agree with the fact that the title 'historian' shouldn't be used loosely (which is what you go into in the next paragraph) but I'm not sure if I agree with you when it comes to regurgitation. I think history syllabuses are limited but it doesn't stop history students from researching something they're interested in and bring in a new perspective. For example, a lot of people in my Modern class said that Germany caused WW1. I personally think that all the countries caused WW1. Although the syllabus doesn't really touch on historiography (maybe in the Personality section)- unless you're doing History Extension- you're still given room to argue a new idea. I remember one of the HSC markers Phil Mundy saying in his lecture that HSC markers love unique theses. Personally, I wouldn't be brave enough to argue a completely new idea if it's gonna put me in a disadvantaged place since some HSC markers are more biased than others, but it is encouraging that one marker is encouraging us to bring new ideas to the table.
Awesome points! I agree with you in some regards, but I personally don't think that, as history students, we are always regurgitating information from historians. I think students, whether they know it or not, are questioning what they see and, to some degree, are creating an alternate way of thinking about the past!I think you bring an excellent point! Before we knew about the idea of counterfactual history, a lot of people tend to ask 'what if' questions. These days, that's an arguably legitimate topic to study.
I think we could be considered historians if we are actively researching more about certain topics and aiming to draw our own conclusions and new interpretations about it (which most of the time we aren’t doing). I think that as students we are mostly ‘parroting’ what we have learnt from the HSC syllabus and the topics that our teachers have taught us. So, if I had written a modern essay in the exams, I wouldn’t be considered a historian because it isn’t a unique perspective (& it’s something that’s been written by thousands of other students).And I agree with you here! I would also add that if we're researching and investigating the various sides/versions of the past. As HSC students, we don't have the time to go through all the evidence and come up with our own judgements afterwards (Ranke is rolling in his grave lol).
I definitely don’t think we’re academic historians either. I didn’t read everything on the Holocaust for my major, and there were heaps of perspectives that I would’ve missed out, even just from abiding with the word limit. I also think that an academic historian would need to spend a lot more time on their works then we did on our major. I think you’d have to have some kind of degree in history to be an academic historian (maybe a PhD) and you’d need to be continuously working on your books/works. They should be professionals (e.g, I’d expect them to know how to properly footnote throughout their works and properly evaluate their sources) whereas we are only just learning these new research skills (and even a year might not be large enough to be competent in these skills to a high academic level).That's a great point you brought up here! I totally forgot about word limits and time constraints on our Major Works. And that is true, word limits are very annoying because we're not including more perspectives that we could've discussed. As for time constraints, I think that's an interesting thing you bring up because we always constantly talk about how new evidence tends to show up as time passes by. But if we're constantly finding new evidence in the future, then is there any point in producing history now when we know that we haven't completely found all the evidence? But is there such thing as discovering all of the evidence? (I'm slowly spiralling lol)
Thank you for trying to revive the thread!! ;D Feel free to pick my comments apart! :)Great seeing you here Katie! You certainly brought up new points I didn't consider :D
Hey there,
I have another historiography debate: I was watching The Film Theorist's video on How to Win Oscar Best Picture. You don't have to watch the whole video but he brings up an interesting point. To summarise, the most common ways you can win a Best Picture is to either make a film about a true story or about actors/acting because most of the members of the Academy Awards are men, won an Oscar and have an average age of 62. This was something I noticed (considering how much of an Oscar fan I am). There are so many Best Picture nominees/winners I can list: The Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, The King Speech etc.
My question is: considering how much attention biopics get during Oscar season, do you think Hollywood is exploiting history? Is it even considered ethical?
Hey guys!! So I just wanted to share my opinions on some of the issues being discussed. It's been really interesting to read all the different opinions on historical points of contention, I feel like by reading what other people think it's made it much easier for me to be like "Oh yeah that makes heaps of sense, I agree with that" or to be "I see where you're coming from but I kinda disagree with that point." So basically here are my views on a few of the debates-
Historical Objectivity
Obviously, this is a big one and makes an appearance in a lot of the past exams I've been going through. Personally, I agree with the idea that history can never be objective, and as there is a multitude of biases that just pile up in any historical work- the bias of the sources used, the bias of the historian themselves- but I do think they historians should strive to produce the most objective truth possible. I think the idea of Carr that "history is interpretation" is really resonant because really the study of the history is a way of looking at past events using a number of different perspectives to grasp some idea of what occurred, but in my opinion the main purpose of history is to learn from previous societies/ways of thinking and so working around the plethora of perspectives is integral to establishing some sort of basis for historical facts. I say "historical facts" and not objective facts, because whilst a complete version of the truth is unattainable, there is some a number of historical facts we can't dispute as some of you have discussed (like the Holocaust, Stolen Generation etc.) I feel like my view kind aligns with Richard Evans (the guy that worked on the Irving vs Lipstadt case) to an extent because he really pushed for the fact that historians need to find some mutual ground and establish facts of history that can't be refuted.
Historical Fiction
I actually did my project on this, looking at the television show The Tudors and discussing whether it had a place in the 21st century. Now for any of you who have watched The Tudors, you'll know that whilst its a good watch, it completely butchers the reign of King Henry VIII. In my essay, I ended up arguing that it did have a place in the historical discipline though, because I reckon that history is a public discipline and thus requires recognition in order to maintain its esteem. Obviously, most of the general public aren't going to read complex history books for fun (unlike most of us I'm guessing) but I think that historical fiction generates an interest in people that is so vital in increasing historical awareness. The way I see it, if someone watches a historical fiction show like The Tudors, they'll either enjoy it and move on with some (admittedly skewed) extra knowledge about the Tudor period or they'll find a passion for the era and do their own research into the details of historical accuracy, and viola! we have another fellow history buff. I know there are obviously detriments to portraying incorrect information, but I feel like history is losing its place a bit in our society, and historical fiction is a way (not a perfect one but a way) in regenerating that interest.
Wow even if nobody replies to this thread, it's been really nice to just put all the ideas in my head and into actual tangible words aha. Goodluck to all the extension history students this year!
Museums are living, breathing repositories of who we are and where we’ve come from, and the world around us.