HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History
History Extension Debating Thread (ie. how to develop your "voice")
Mada438:
--- Quote from: owidjaja on October 21, 2018, 04:30:28 pm ---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)
--- End quote ---
Not a history ext student, but i'll put this out there...
We are like apprentices. We're not full on historians but by engaging with the past as students of history, we're halfway there
imogen.b:
--- Quote from: owidjaja on October 21, 2018, 04:30:28 pm ---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)
--- End quote ---
Hey there, good question!
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. I think that with the creation of our major History Projects, we are indeed producers of history.
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?
Let me know what you think too! :) :)
ee1233:
--- Quote from: owidjaja on October 21, 2018, 04:30:28 pm ---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)
--- End quote ---
I think that anyone who investigates, interprets and constructs a history (consciously or subconsciously) is a historian! Historians are responsible for creating a particular version of events - Anyone can do this (though most do it in an 'informal' manner).
I think the debate should be more about who are 'academic historians' - I think that's a hard question! ;D
owidjaja:
--- Quote from: imogen.b on October 21, 2018, 08:55:18 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: imogen.b on October 21, 2018, 08:55:18 pm ---I think that with the creation of our major History Projects, we are indeed producers of history.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: imogen.b on October 21, 2018, 08:55:18 pm ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Mada438 on October 21, 2018, 08:52:55 pm ---Not a history ext student, but i'll put this out there...
We are like apprentices. We're not full on historians but by engaging with the past as students of history, we're halfway there
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: ee1233 on October 21, 2018, 09:12:50 pm ---I think that anyone who investigates, interprets and constructs a history (consciously or subconsciously) is a historian!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: ee1233 on October 21, 2018, 09:12:50 pm ---Historians are responsible for creating a particular version of events - Anyone can do this (though most do it in an 'informal' manner).
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: ee1233 on October 21, 2018, 09:12:50 pm ---I think the debate should be more about who are 'academic historians' - I think that's a hard question! ;D
--- End quote ---
I 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 :)
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)
hums_student:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version