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

[alethea]

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).

Good point. I agree, that as long as there is sufficient evidence gathered, you can write about a recent event.

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.

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.

[...] 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.

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. 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. 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.

[sudodds]

Finally found some time to go over everyones responses!!

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.

However, at the same time, as we know, just because a source is written a significant amount of time after the events in question, does not mean that it is objective (I think at this point we can all agree that there is a level of subjectivity within all writing, so I'm not going to elaborate much on this), and in many ways I believe it is just presenting a new form of subjectivity! One benefit of writing at the time of the event is a more reliable understanding of the zeitgeist and atmosphere, along with the general "quirks", traditions and values of the period. Writing years after the event, from a new time and new society, with new values, traditions and beliefs will affect the way we understand a past event, personality or culture (re. Mary Beard alter example I bring up all the time ).

For example, we (rightfully so) live in a context where slavery is condemned, and seen to be a hideous crime. However, if we lived in Ancient Rome, where this attitude was not prevalent in the slightest, we would almost certainly have a different view, because the core values in relation to slavery were radically different. Thus, we cannot objectively look at the practice of slavery in Ancient Rome, or make an objective assessment upon the slave owners. We're automatically inclined, probably, to assume that all slave owners were cruel, evil people, because they took part in a cruel and evil practice. However, we know that owning slaves was widespread, with even poor individuals potentially owning a couple - were they all evil people? Or did they just live in a society that had a different sense of morality and ethical code? I know this is a pretty difficult and controversial issue aha, but seriously consider the following - if you were alive during Ancient Rome, are you sure that you would be against slavery?

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.

When does the present become the past?

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.

Thanks heaps Susie!

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!

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?

I don't agree with Shirer's argument.

OOOooooo interesting! Love a good debate with a source

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.

Very good point! I love how you mentioned hagiographies, because definitely very true! Princess Diana is another great example, as is JFK. However, I'm not sure I am 100% convinced that these hagiographies are purely due to them being written in close proximity to the events, but more so due to their almost "martyr" like ending, or the narrative/literary quality of their lives. The reason why I suggest this is because I was actually having a conversation with my parents (both English, living there until 2008) about Diana's death, and both of them recalled how confused they were when they saw people on the news at the time of the incident in hysterics, proclaiming her to be the "Peoples Princess". In my dads words "I don't think I ever even heard her speak". I don't think people were necessarily loyal to the personality of Diana, but found intrigue in the nature of her demise.

I think this argument is further emphasised when you consider that many Ancient figures have been similarly written in this way! For example, Augustus (to a certain extent, though maybe in a different way), Joan of Arc, Anne Boleyn, Lady Jane Grey etc. etc., all of whom lived centuries ago.

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!

Great work guys!!!!

Susie

[sudodds]

Hey guys!! Got another question for you all

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

[katie,rinos]

Hey guys!! Got another question for you all

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?

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?

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.   
Bill O’Reilly and how he neglected to interview Reagan's aids as they had a differing perspective to Reilly's own hypothesis.
David Irving-Holocaust denial.

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.
Edit: E.H Carr and his fishmonger analogy (can't believe I didn't think of that before)

Also, try and relate this back to your case study for Section II of the exam!!

Interested to hear your thoughts

Susie

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.
 
Camelot School (Sorenson)-Wishing to preserve Kennedys memory, very close to him therefore many negative aspects were glossed over or not talked about. Used personal recollections, and accounts from those who worked with Kennedy.

Revisionist (Hersh)-Very Critical of Kennedy actions. Wished to “reclaim American history”. Uses newly released CIA information, files and interviews, hearsay evidence.

Post-Revisionist (Dallek)-Aim for a balanced account. Uses access to Kennedy’s medical reports, released Soviet archives, speeches/taped conversations from the cabinet room.

Thanks again Susie!!

[av-angie-er]

Hey guys!! Got another question for you all

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

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.

But thinking about it now, any historian who wishes to influence their contemporary society's views has a predetermined hypothesis because they're proposing a specific view rather than truly trying to learn from/investigate the past. In regard to the JFK case study, this is seen through Camelot historians' ambition to sustain the Kennedy brand and selectively choose their evidence to achieve this, as well as revisionist historians who have a predetermined agenda to challenge orthodox perspectives and 'expose' Kennedy. In these cases, it's clear that a historian's use of evidence and depiction of the past is fundamentally conditioned to their hypotheses and their purpose of either deifying or demonising Kennedy, suggesting that a hypothesis is integral to any historical investigation.

(Wrote this in a bit of a hurry so sorry if it makes zero sense aha )

[owidjaja]

Hey guys!! Got another question for you all

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?

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!

But yes, I think it's extremely difficult to present a historically objective argument. All historians are susceptible to bias- just choosing a person to interview or selecting a specific source is already biased because you're basing your argument on that one perspective and find as much evidence to support that perspective. However, I think there are some historians that attempt to lessen the bias in their works. For example, I spent the holidays reading Christopher Clark's book 'The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914.' Many European historians that study the origins of WW1 easily blame Germany for causing the war but Clark's book provides us a new perspective on the causes of WW1- within each chapter, he assess and explains each country's fault prior to WW1. Margaret MacMillan's 'The War That Ended Peace' also had a similar format in explaining each country's fault prior to WW1. Although many people still blame Germany today, my view on the origins of WW1 is that all countries are to blame since it takes more than one nation to provoke a world war- yet again, my presentation of these two books may be biased since I agree with most of their arguments.

In regards to studying history without a hypothesis, my view on historians is that they aim to present a historically valid argument. I think it's impossible to present the historical truth since there are many documents and pieces of evidence that may solve current historical debates but are lost or destroyed before anyone could get their hands on it, and that's something we will never get our hands on.

An example of that we've only looked at in class in terms of carefully selecting evidence is David Irving. We looked at Irving vs Lipstadt case and how Lipstadt accused Irving as a Holocaust-denier but Irving claimed that the Holocaust was only a 'rumour.' Although it is arguable whether Irving is a credible, qualified WW2 historian, I think both sides had some degree of bias in their arguments.

Irving: He was jailed for mistranslating and manipulating evidence and was deemed a racist and anti-Semitic, albeit he claimed he was a 'Holocaust sleuth.' I remember reading about how his brother stated that during their childhood, Irving would declare 'Heil Hitler' as a child, though Irving denied that testimony. Although this is debatable, I think that this was where Irving began his neo-Nazi ideas, which would explain his unorthodox views on the Holocaust. Where exactly did this view come from? Not entirely sure since it's quite difficult to find any further biographical details on Irving whilst avoiding shady sources.

Lipstadt: Her book 'Denying the Holocaust' was received praise but I do think there is a degree of subjectivity in her works as a Modern Jewish historian. Her upbringing as a Jew and being raised by rabbis could significantly impact the way she's presented her evidence due to her affiliation with her local Jewish community. Since her parents were immigrants post WW2- her father being German- there could be emotions involved when writing her books, causing her to carefully select evidence that supports her arguments.

Sorry if this made no sense or if I went off into a tangent lol. But I do enjoy these discussions

[sudodds]

hey hey historiographers! Just came across this very interesting donald trump related article, which I thought you might be keen to give a 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

[Mada438]

hey hey historiographers! Just came across this very interesting donald trump related article, which I thought you might be keen to give a 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 read
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.
It's not history, there is only one history and that is the one that we know occured.
History is written by the winners, trump is not a winner. America is only a partial winner.
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*
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. The only fully working example today is Cuba. Historically, communist countries don't fare too well after a while. 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.
BY THE WAY, YOUR POSITION DOES NOT AFFORD YOU THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHAT IS HISTORY.
No singular person has the power to do that.
Dear Trump
You're just a child in an adults body.
Grow the hell up

-Spoken from a non history extension student who enjoys debating

[sudodds]

Interesting read
Honestly, i just facepalm myself when i hear anything said by trump

You wouldn't be the only one

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...

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 )

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.

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.

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.

Do you think these national myths or legends are a good thing, or a bad thing?

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*
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.

Are there any other reasons you can think of as to why history is always written by winners?

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.

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.

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.
No singular person has the power to do that.

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?

Dear Trump
You're just a child in an adults body.
Grow the hell up

-Spoken from a non history extension student who enjoys debating

Have to agree with you there! And really well done, especially for a non-history extension student. Hope to see you around here more

Susie

[Mada438]

Jessus, you really picked apart my statement 
Okay so here goes my reply...

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 )

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 

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.
Do you think these national myths or legends are a good thing, or a bad thing?

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.

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.
THE DEBATE OF THE CENTURY 😂😂

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.
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.

You make a very valid point!
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.

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
Perhaps we should just debate politics? 😂

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"
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.

Have to agree with you there! And really well done, especially for a non-history extension student. Hope to see you around here more

Susie

Well thankyou,i look forward to continuing this discussion with you! 
I just really enjoy debating

[sudodds]

Jessus, you really picked apart my statement 

That'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.

I think, a good way of understanding this is that history (or really the world aha) is made up of higher and lower order facts. Lower order facts are the (usually indisputable) who, what, when, where. For example, most people wouldn't argue with you, if you said "Hitler was the leader of Germany during World War II", "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon" or "the USA dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Your interpretation of history seems to place more of a focus on these lower order questions - However i'd argue that these are not what make history history! People don't write books on the who, what, when, where - they write them on the how, why, to what extent, significance, etc. etc. "How to Hitler rise to power as the leader of Germany during WWII", "What was the significance of Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon?", "Why did the USA drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as was it justified?". Those are the questions that make history, and those questions are inherently subjective - there is no clear answer, and any answer provided will be impacted by the historians unique contextual situation and perspective.

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 

(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!)

Yeah I just 100% don't agree that we can reach historical objectivity, and at this point, most historians don't either. That's why a lot of historians will now have a preface at the beginning of their book, disclaiming that their interpretation, though researched and evidenced, may be impacted by so and so perspective. For example, William Shirer at the beginning of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich outlines how he lived in Germany during World War II, and that that may impact his objectivity. Remember that even if the sources you look at more or less say the same thing, that is a tiny, minute fraction of the amount of sources that actually exist. You are also (most likely, don't want to make an assumption) looking at sources that come in a collection used to back up a point (very common when studying a highschool syllabus because there is a certain "way" that they want you to learn things), or ones that fit your own hypothesis of the events, so it makes sense that they are similar.

Also, if you believe that historical objectivity is possible, that makes you an empiricist, as relativists denounce objectivity - i'd have a look at the Carr vs. Elton debate

Shall respond to the rest of your argument later Watch this space, I'll edit it into this post!

EDIT PART TWO:

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.
THE DEBATE OF THE CENTURY 😂😂

bring it

You make a very valid point!
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.

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 )

There are definitely flaws within every system I agree with that (i just personally think they're bigger under capitalism oops)

Like i said before, all political systems inherently suck in some form. I hate parts of all of them
Perhaps we should just debate politics? 😂

Ahahaha only if it relates to historiography

Well kids should learn something, so i believe it should be the most agreed upon, least debated on "official history"
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.

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).

In a way, you could say that Big History is a nice move away from the very nationalist focus - it looks at history on a macro rather than micro level (eg. it's not nation specific). But I definitely agree that it doesn't sit right with me that just because Bill Gates has money he can drastically alter what is taught in schools. School is where most peoples understanding of history comes from after all, so if someone with money can create the curriculum then they will have a huge impact on how the nation understands the past. Again, just another failing of capitalism

Well thankyou,i look forward to continuing this discussion with you! 
I just really enjoy debating

Me to! God why aren't you doing extension!?

Susie

[rosiet]

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.
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?
~ 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 rn
~ 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)
~ 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?

Like i said, I don't really have my own views plotted out and am just trying to properly solidify them.

[katie,rinos]

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.
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

Hey! Welcome to Atar Notes!! 
This is a great thread to test out your ideas! Don’t doubt them-they seem really good!!
I also agree that history can never be 100% objective.

~ 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.

In Pompeii, Mary Beard (a British historian) found that a stone slab discovered in Pompeii, which was originally thought to be a kitchen bench top, was actually an alter (likely a laraium). By looking through our modern day lens, historians had believed the room was a kitchen and the slab a bench because they were functions that we are used to in our modern houses.

Another topic brought up slightly earlier in the thread, is that of slavery in Ancient Rome. Now it is condemned and seen as a heinous crime, however in Ancient Rome, where there was a large amount of slaves, the attitudes and perspectives towards slavery would have been very different. We automatically believe that the slave owners are cruel, evil people, however is this just their societies moral and ethical code (which is hugely different to ours)?

~ 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 rn

History 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.

The audience would also have to put their own interpretations on individual words. The role of females (and therefore the word itself) has changed throughout time. E.g in Ancient Rome women didn’t have as large a role in working and the social structure whereas now we are a lot more equal. So, the linguistics of the words may be perceived differently for different time periods. If individual words can be interpreted differently by people, then how can we have objectivity.

~ 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).

We would also be missing several perspectives on an event because of the time period/social classes they lived in. E.g women hardly wrote during Pompeii/Sparta, and even now a large proportion of our history is written by white, middle-aged, privileged men.

Some other examples include:
-   Holocaust- Many different sources were destroyed. (Books written by Jewish authors were burnt, and many different evidence carelessly misplaced/taken out of their normal context or destroyed.)
-   Agrippina’s Diary-Has been referenced by some Ancient historians and would provide a great perspective on what she was thinking at the time, but is lost.
-   Sparta: there is a huge lack of archeological evidence now as hardly any buildings were built and many have been destroyed over the years.

Also if we had all of the information, it would be difficult to read and synthesize each one into a single historical work. Historians would still have to selectively pick and choose what parts and interpretations they wish to talk about (e.g in our majors we can’t include all of our research). Some historians have selectively chose their evidence in order to confirm their preconceived hypothesis of the event which is definitely not objective.

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!

[prickles]

This thread is in some sad need of repair 

[sudodds]

This thread is in some sad need of repair 

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?