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

[katie,rinos]

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 . 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.
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.
(Image removed from quote.)

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.
 

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.
I think the I kinda misread your question and then went on a tangent about truth. Sorry, if I have.

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;
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!).

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:
‘To the next generation, Von Ranke was not Von Rankean enough.’
Didn’t handle his sources carefully enough.
Used only one type of source and focussed on the upper classmen of the time.
Chose his sources from a narrow range and became a prisoner of his sources.
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.

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:
(Image removed from quote.)
Are they both right, but they just have different truths? Or are they both wrong, because neither is an objective truth?

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.

[sarah.l]

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.

But yeah, that is my perspective on the issue

Sarah

[jadzia26]

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.
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!)

[sudodds]

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.
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!)

So glad this thread gave you some ideas 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

@Katie @Sarah - shall respond to your most recent arguments asap

[sudodds]

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.

But yeah, that is my perspective on the issue

Sarah

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.

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.

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? For example, why, when I say "Dark Ages" we immediately think of Medieval Europe, when in reality, the "Dark Ages" was a Golden Age for the Islamic World! Have you heard of this concept called 'Orientalism' by Edward Said? I think this relates very well to this concept as well. Here is an outline of the concept (From wikipedia lol, but I actually think this is a pretty good explanation):  Orientalism is a" subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arab-Islamic peoples and their culture", which derives from Western images of what is Oriental (cultural representations) that reduce the Orient to the fictional essences of "Oriental peoples" and "the places of the Orient"; such cultural representations dominate the communications (discourse) of Western peoples with and about non-Western peoples. These cultural representations usually depict the ‘Orient’ as primitive, irrational, violent, despotic, fanatic, and essentially inferior to the westerner or native informant, and hence, ‘enlightenment’ can only occur when “traditional” and “reactionary” values are replaced by “contemporary” and “progressive” ideas that are either western or western-influenced."

Really good article!! She makes some great points-I love the quote . 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  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.

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.

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 think the I kinda misread your question and then went on a tangent about truth. Sorry, if I have.

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!

And don't worry about tangents - I love em Especially for this thread, it opens up new areas of discussion!

Ok, so i'm not really sure how to explain it. I'm going to use my major as an example;
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!).

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!).

Some of the criticism of Von Ranke were:
‘To the next generation, Von Ranke was not Von Rankean enough.’

OOoooo great quote!

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]
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.

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.

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...

Awesome work Katie/Sarah!! Keep it up

Susie

[sarah.l]

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.”
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/     

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’.”

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)

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!!
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)

Ayyyyyyeeeeeee  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. 

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."

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...

You're totally right!! I genuinely think empathy is one of the most underrated emotions of humanity .

Thanks so much for this discussion, it's really awesome!!
-  Sarah 

[sudodds]

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’.”

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)

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.

For example, on the one hand, British imperial history (particularly that that takes a more apologetic approach eg. Niall Ferguson and Simon Schama) has become increasingly popular recently, and as i think I have already said in this thread, I chalk this up to the rise in British Nationalism, as a result of the perceived "threat" of globalisation.

This is my thought process (hopefully in makes sense). On the one hand, a positive spin on Britain's imperial history would be really effective in instilling a sense of British exceptionalism - the idea that Britain as a powerful, righteous, benevolent and "civilised" nation, more so than any other (ie. no one could have led an empire like the British - and no one did) - at a time where the British identity has become increasingly demoralised (Britain is considerably less significant as a nation today - went from being potentially the MOST powerful, to one that is essentially America lite). However, on the other hand, many works dealing with Britain's Imperial past (such as Niall Ferguson's 'Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World), asserts British exceptionalism yes, but more so I believe asserts the "superiority" of Western values as a whole. Thus through his works, and through presenting a positive view of the British Empire and their spread of Western "civilisation", he further validates a certain other nation's Western imperialist activity - the United States. So either way, it is supporting either British Nationalism, or American Nationalism.

Feel like I went severely off track here (i just love talking about this stuff haha). Basically I like your point about how this is a self perpetuating issue, however I'm just wondering whether in our more globalised world, it'll become harder for this "national myth" to be perpetuated? Like will globalisation disrupt this self-fulfilling prophecy, in the way that as new forms of history, particularly forms that don't isolate their works to one particular nation (ie. Big History, Macrohistory, Cross-culture/social history, etc.), become more evident, history as a form of national identity will start to decline? Or do you think the fact that this idea of a shared, collective history is so integral to this sense of national identity that nothing will be able to stop it?

I feel like the above was just a word vomit, so hopefully some of that made sense haha.

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 love how you mention the idea of different forms of history, and how oral history and tradition is often seen as inferior by the standards of more empirical historians, despite it being just as interpretive and subject to change as written evidence (no matter what form of history, it is still essentially a game of Chinese whispers). Do you think it could be a laziness factor as well? Like it takes a lot more effort to actively seek out and arrange interviews and discussions with a select group of individuals, who may be nowhere near you geographically (though modern technology can aid this process now, in previous years this could have been a major expense), or have a considerable language barrier, than it is to do some online research, or go through written archives in your own time.

I actually have two really great videos regarding this issue!!
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)

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.

I've actually never heard of the idea that our ancient ancestors couldn't see the colour blue, that's crazy! And the second link - wow! Again, didn't know that this was a thing. It just becomes so clearer how historically, non-white individuals are just set up for failure in regards to having their experiences and history recognised. Thank god for social history putting in the effort, and kinda further emphasises to me how important social history is as a facet of the discipline, despite the potential inaccuracies that may arise, due to the fact that their source pool is more limited, necessitating the use of "sociological imagination".

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.

Do you also think this is the case? I'll admit, I think in many cases it wouldn't be this clear cut, but I still think its something worth discussing - is the nature of revisionism inherently limiting?

 

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!!
-  Sarah 

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 

[bella1001]

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)

[sudodds]

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?

[sudodds]

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!

Spoiler

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.

Have fun

Susie

[bigsweetpotato2000]

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!

Spoiler

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.

Have fun

Susie

Gotta love those classics <3 Enduring relevance and all

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?

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. 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?
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.
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.

[bigsweetpotato2000]

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!

Spoiler

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.

Have fun

Susie

I'm sorry Susie, but that was like 5 questions not 1 O.o

[katie,rinos]

Which came first? The historian or the source?
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’. 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.
Thanks again Susie (also huge congrats on the 1000 posts and 200 upvotes)!! Also, so happy that this thread is becoming more popular!

[sudodds]

Gotta love those classics <3 Enduring relevance and all

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.

If 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?

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?
Under Oxford dictionary, historians are:

An expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon.

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?

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.

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.

Really like the last line here

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?
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 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 

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!

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

Well done bigsweetpotato2000 and katie,rinos Keep up the great work!

Susie

[katie,rinos]

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

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 

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.
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 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 !
Thanks again!,
Katie