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

[sudodds]

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

This DEFINITELY relates to historiography don't worry! This is actually relates to something that I brought up and discussed in both of my lectures It is very easy for contemporary historians (and ordinary individuals!) to look back at the past with this sense of superiority - that we have "progressed" as a society away from backwards ideals, without taking into account the motivators behind said values and ideals - ideology. The ideology of the time - often religious, though not always - has a critical impact upon the way in which a culture defines their sense of morality. As the philosopher Slavoj Zizek discusses within many of his works, ideology is an inescapable reality, that informs the way in which an individual perceives their past, experiences their present, and anticipates their future. Here is actually a fantastic video (its a clip from his film 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology') that explores this briefly. Though you don't have to agree with the ideology, you do have to understand it, in order to make a more educated and fair assessment upon a past society/persons actions. For example, a Marxist, who perceives the "collective" to be more important that the "individual" would view our current society as morally reprehensible, as from their perspective capitalism inevitably results in the exploitation of the many, for the benefit of the few. However, a capitalist doesn't perceive their actions to be "exploitation", and instead would consider capitalism to be a moral ideology that allows for individuals who work hard to benefit from their innovation. They would also consider the actions of marxists and communists to be morally wrong, and potentially encroaching on individual freedoms and liberties.

Basically that was the long winded way of saying it is important to at least try to step into the other persons shoes before passing judgement, so as to better understand the complex motivations that went behind certain actions and events.

Another critical issue that relates to what you are discussing is the way in which many contemporary historians, judging the past based upon contemporary values and ideas, misunderstand ancient events, societies and artefacts due to the fact that they are looking at them through a modern bubble. An example of this that has been mentioned many times on this thread is a stone slab discovered in Pompeii, in what was believed to be a kitchen, that many assumed was essentially a kitchen bench - however Mary Beard discovered that in actuality, it was an alter/lararia.

[mitchello]

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

Yesss, consistently is a great synonym. I think that's far more open and accurate than the actual definition of 'historian'.

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

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

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

(Like Susie, no disrespect intended) Yeah, religion is fascinating in that regard. Having gone to a Christian school and what not, I'm still quite unfamiliar with other religions, and why people actually engage with Christianity, as oppose to other widespread belief systems - which obviously hold similar merit due to their wide practice (is it due to evidence, convenience, etc? I'm not sure)

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

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

Susie

Maybe scientific was the right term, but I just consider them less likely to impose moral standards/bias (which they seek to minimise) on their history - as oppose to narrative historians, who often reflect distinct values in their account (for example, ancient Crusade histories reciprocate the distinct religious belief of a given party). And thanks a lot, it's great fun to write about history extension (this is the only subject I'd do it for)

[mitchello]

Wow, veerry interesting video. Is there a solution (strange word choice, I'm referring to its distorting impacts) to ideology? Does Zizek suggest something in later sections of the documentary, or is his proposition, like you said, the understanding of a given ideology?
And from here, to what extent does our own dogma limit our ability to empathise with or understand past/existing ideologies? Super cool.
I'm not really set on an answer myself, maybe 1am is rough on my coherence

[katie,rinos]

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

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

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

Almost finished reading your Ancient notes, I have been reading them in between exams and they are so incredibly helpful. And, I’ve found that I’m laughing at bits which is really weird for a textbook (it's really conversational like, which is cool) . By this, would you argue that a textbook (e.g for Ancient) cannot be a historical work? Would you argue that a historical book would need a unique interpretation/hypothesis of an event?  What would differentiate a historical work from just a book about history? You talk about this, but how can you know the difference.
I really like your definition, although I do like the inclusion of the word consistently. However, even then what we define as consistently? How often/consistency does a historian need to work on their book?

Oooooo nice points! Particularly that you don't have to "write" history to be a historian - which is something I'm not 100% sure I agree with you on! Though I do believe that documentaries in particular should be considered historical works, many of these documentaries were based on, or accompany an already existing literary work on the subject. For example, Niall Ferguson's 'Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World' was a historical, literary text, before it was a successful documentary series.

I never thought of it this way but it makes sense. Another example of this (I think?) is Mary Beard wrote her book on Pompeii in 2010 and her documentary came out a lot more recently. Actually just found this article, Mary Beard it doesn't really matter if tourists damage Pompeii (don’t know if this is entirely historiological) but what are your thoughts on this?

I'm not sure if I would consider films (I'm assuming you mean fiction here) works of history. Though they may be historical, the creative liberties that are exerted when making a film compromise historical accuracy to such a degree that I believe it would be facetious to consider them to be historical works, even when they are based on historical texts. For example, the moving 'Dunkirk' is fantastic, like such a good film that I recommend everyone watch, that i believe DOES really capture the time in which it is depicting (one of the last surviving individuals on Dunkirk actually watched the film and remarked it's accuracy). However I don't believe it is a historical work as it is still fictional - the characters and events, though they may be dealing with a situation based in reality are still works of fiction.

Yeah, I was meaning fiction. Really want to watch Dunkirk now-hopefully after exams, what is it about? Understand all your arguments, like movies while, encompassing historical places/events still include a lot of fiction elements.

In terms of museums it is unlikely to be the work of one individual - though I am sure many historians had help with their research, it is still essentially their work, whereas a historical exhibition at a museum is the product of a team, many of whoms primary role is to buy/locate the artefacts that have already be dug up and analysed by archeologists and historians. Therefore to me, a museum curator doesn't have to be a historian. Video games are also another example whereby it is created by more than one person, many of whom are totally isolated from the historical process. The fictional element of video games is another aspect that prevents me from fully accepting it as a historical work to the extent whereby I would consider the creator a historian (however, I am super interested to hear what your friends conclusions were for their assessment task - sounds super interesting and highly relevant to this discussion!).

Never really thought about it this way as well! Now that I think about it, obviously museums and video games aren’t made by only one person and they aren’t really historians. I actually have no idea what my friends conclusions were. We had to present them to the class but I don’t do modern so I didn’t see hers and really wasn’t heaps interested at the time. I’m pretty sure, one of the main reasons she did it was to play video games . I might ask her after exams and get back to you.

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

Never heard of macrohistory before-sounds really cool! What types of issues/concerns does it look at?

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

Yeah, especially my two Camelot historians were really close to Kennedy and obviously this would have impacted their interpretations. What would you think if historians actually find Agrippina’s diaries? Would we consider them historical documents and her a historian or would there need to be more of a sense of personal detachment from this?

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

Before history extension, I actually knew hardly anything about Kennedy, except for the assassination. I also know barely anything on US presidents so I can’t judge him well. I think he was trying to be a good person but some of the problems were caused by his incompetency and his youth as president. Not all of his actions were fantastic-The Bay of Pigs was pretty much a disaster (he relied a lot on his advisors at the time) and there are arguments that his actions led to American involvement in the Vietnam War. Kinda weird how influential the Camelot historians have been in shaping our views of Kennedy.

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

Are all revisionist historians always critical of the initial interpretations? Do they write only to challenge the views of prior historians? Is this their initial hypothesis, which sounds really biased/subjective to me.

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

Yeah, definitely stuff like his affair may have affected his precedency. We never got to study his affair in class. Out of the five topics we could have studied my class is doing Cuba, Kennedy and Khrushchev and Indochina. My teacher said that sometimes the essays on his private life aren’t as sophisticated as the ones that my class is doing. It would be really interesting though.
For the “reclaim history” statement I think it was because he believed of a false narrative-however, there may be something more significant (not really sure).

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

I think that he was a lot more balanced then the other historical schools that did write about Kennedy. While I think that he presents both side of the argument, he still uses some judgements about the event and isn’t truly 100% impartial.

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

Susie

Thanks heaps again Susie! Don’t worry about my procrastination (this was heaps more fun!), also counting this as study for my extension exam on Tuesday! 

[sudodds]

Yesss, consistently is a great synonym. I think that's far more open and accurate than the actual definition of 'historian'.

I think so to - though katie brings up a very good point as to what "consistent" actually means! Ahhhhhh linguistics - always ruining our fun. But yeah, my definition of consistently may be different to someone elses definition. Do you think that matters?

(Like Susie, no disrespect intended) Yeah, religion is fascinating in that regard. Having gone to a Christian school and what not, I'm still quite unfamiliar with other religions, and why people actually engage with Christianity, as oppose to other widespread belief systems - which obviously hold similar merit due to their wide practice (is it due to evidence, convenience, etc? I'm not sure)

Same here - went to Catholic schools all my life, despite personally being Agnostic. With that in mind, as an agnostic, I don't believe it is about evidence, because I personally don't believe their is evidence of the existence of a higher power - that is why I'm agnostic (again - no disrespect if anyone here is religious, this is just my personal belief). I think it is much to do with context, where you were born etc. I can guarantee that a Christian individual from Australia, everything else the same but born in India, would likely have grown up Hindu instead. Though there are a small minority of people that find religion later in life, for the most part it is something you are grow up with - it is contextual.

Maybe scientific was the right term, but I just consider them less likely to impose moral standards/bias (which they seek to minimise) on their history - as oppose to narrative historians, who often reflect distinct values in their account (for example, ancient Crusade histories reciprocate the distinct religious belief of a given party). And thanks a lot, it's great fun to write about history extension (this is the only subject I'd do it for)

Oooo this relates well to something I had to look at in uni recently! Here is an extract from John Hartley's 'Repurposing literacy' (not a historian! so don't use him as one in your essays - but I'm sure you can use his ideas):

"Hoggart had a lot invested in the proposition that popular culture was a positive source of values and judgements (in the first half of Uses), even as he found fault with much of the entertainment fare destined for popular consumption (in the second half of Uses). But this remained a minority position, even on the Left, which continued to hold to a modernist and/or Marxist view that saw popular culture in opposition to intellectual culture, not to be trusted because it was prey to manipulation by powerful forces, from commerce to fascism, although oddly enough few literary intellectuals worried about popular culture being manipulated by communism- an exception being Anthony Burgess's 1962 novel A Clockwork Orange, where the youthful thugs' argot (called Nadsat) was infiltrated by Russian words (Nadsat being the Russian for the suffix -teen).

…

In Sinfield's formulation, intellectuals are by definition middle-class. Equally, popular culture is cast as non-middleclass, taking the 'popular' in popular culture to mean demotic (low) rather than democratic (wide), as if intellectuals are external to and therefore exempt from it. This manoeuvre is required in order to produce an opposition between intellectual and popular culture, so as to cast the latter as a 'site of struggle' wherein progressive forces might contest those apparently fascistic tendencies among the 'masses'."

Basically, what Hoggart looked at and discussed was this idea that what was "popular" was easily manipulated, and thus subject to propaganda, ideology and alterior motives, whereas there is this perception, that you also mention, that intellectuals and academics deal with their works in a different way. That there is a divide between what is "popular" and what is "intellectual". However, if you take into account to stuff that Zizek talks about, or just postmodernism in general, it is clear that even academic historians will be impacted by these same issues - it just may not be as obvious - or may even be obvious, but we miss it because we assume that it is more objective!!

Wow, veerry interesting video. Is there a solution (strange word choice, I'm referring to its distorting impacts) to ideology? Does Zizek suggest something in later sections of the documentary, or is his proposition, like you said, the understanding of a given ideology?
And from here, to what extent does our own dogma limit our ability to empathise with or understand past/existing ideologies? Super cool.
I'm not really set on an answer myself, maybe 1am is rough on my coherence

I have not watched the documentary in a long while, so I can't remember 100%, but I don't believe he offers a solution - it is an inescapable reality after all. It definitely limits our ability to empathise holistically with past and existing ideologies, however in my opinion, as someone who hasn't accepted postmodernism to the fullest degree, and considers themselves more of a relativist, that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least strive to understand - even if we can only get 20% of the way there, at least we are 20% of the way there rather than 0!

Susie

[sudodds]

Hey hey!

For any of you 12 lurkers, if you would like to join the discussion, you will have to make a completely free account on ATAR Notes!

From there, just click reply and post away!!

Good luck with your exam tomorrow! Hopefully this will prove helpful <3

Susie

[katie,rinos]

Hey hey!

For any of you 12 lurkers, if you would like to join the discussion, you will have to make a completely free account on ATAR Notes!

From there, just click reply and post away!!

Good luck with your exam tomorrow! Hopefully this will prove helpful <3

Susie

Hey,
To the girl who posted about this thread on the HSC discussion group, thanks-you are amazing!
To the 16 lurkers, I would really reinforce Susie's comment. This is an amazing way to share your ideas and develop your voice, which will help heaps in your essays.
Don't be scared to post because Atar Notes is a really amazing community once you get to know everyone and there is no criticism on this thread (or anywhere really).
History Extension is such a hard subject that it would be great to have even more people's ideas to think about and bounce off. You can literally pick anything on this thread to talk/argue about!
Good luck with your exam tomorrow! Hope you go amazing! Hope that this thread and many others are helpful

Also, if you guys have any history extension questions post them here, HISTORY EXTENSION QUESTION THREAD! and Susie or someone else will get back to you, probably even tonight.
There should be question threads for all of your other subjects as well.
I'm so excited at how many people are here!! 

[Lev DB]

Hello humans of Extension History
 for everyone doing Western Imperialism I suggest using Niall Ferguson. Whether or not you agree with what he says he is a really good example of one approach towards the topic.

So for a question such as " 'History isn't really about the past. It is about how we engage with the past' To what extent does your engagement with historian's debate in your chosen case study reflect this view?"
I interpreted this question to be discussing a range of issues but I chose to talk about two one  being; The restrictions of the historians prejudice and perspective
From the question I suggested using the arguments that all historians choose to react and represent a perspective of history whether it be subconcious or concious. This is really important particularly to the statment "it is about how we engage with the past”(this was the CSSA  trial  for 2016). For this point I used the argument that  Ferguson neglects the evidence and perspectives of the periphery, he often relies on official documents and sources such as diary entries of colonists. This obviously impacts his argument as many of the critiques of Western Imperialism lie in their treatment of traditional peoples. Because of this Ferguson presents an image that is heavily economic and at times glorifies the work of Imperialists. His assesment of the impact of WI is generally positive he uses Exceptionalism and anecdotal or counterfactual history to represent colonialism. For example he states in the first episode of his documentry "Empire; how Britain made the modern world" that "toady we live in a world dominated by a single superpower..the United States". Here Ferguson draws parralles to the 'superpowers' of the past and the leading economic position of many countries. From similar statements in his materials it is evident that  he is almost warning America about  the flaws of Great Britains ’superpower’ reign and not to make the same mistakes that brought it’s downfall . Here you could argue that perhaps America is not the leading economic power and look for the reasoning behind Fergusons position or you could move on. I chose not to rant and to move on. The next bit I spoke about was the nature of the accessibilty of Ferguson's work. This point could lead into the semiotics debate as suggested by Saussure however this requires alot of preparation and I know I didnt include it in my practice paper. The reason it is relevant is because Ferguson uses a lot of visual historical reconstruction in his documentries. Saussure's debate would argue (I think) that everything has different meanings to different people. And that despite the fact that there are patterns in symbols and at times symbols can universally accepted or seem obvious to some they still rely on context and as a result cannot always be counted as effective communiction. For example whereas some things may be intended to convey economic or military prowess other could percieve them to represent oppression. This relates to the Source statement " 'History isn't really about the past. It is about how we engage with the past’ because the evidence of past studied by previous historians is the evidence  that we generally have. Therefore if  it is misinterpreted or tampered with, especially through symbols it is easy to continue that legacy of  misinterpretation.

I also read the first two chapters of John Vincent’s ‘An Intelligent person’s guide to History’ and I think John Vincent is really good for the evidence/historical engagement argument. His whole argument is about evidence and is as   such is perfect for this question. Vincent states that  history is all about evidence however he stresses the importance of written evidence for the sole reason that it survives. Here written evidence represents coins, epigraphy and any texts. Although this is really important it ‘is an infinitesimal part’ of the past  and as result is open to many flaws. One such flaw is that “history is about literate societies…tilted towards literate people’. This only represents in Vincent’s words ’the study of stable, hierarchical, agricultural, aristocratic and  religious societies” and  neglects anything  outside that criterion. For example take religious texts such as the Bible and the Qur’an and the impact they have had on societies. Whereas Vincent compares this to “hunting, nomadic, pastoral or gathering people’. This argument is crucial to the example of Western Imperialism as it addresses the obvious partiality towards certain types of history due to the lack of indigenous evidence in places such as Africa where societies had developed communication and historical techniques that   did not rely on epigraphical or written sources.   

Obviously this isn't applicable  to every question however I feel like these points could work for most evidence questions

[mitchello]

I think so to - though katie brings up a very good point as to what "consistent" actually means! Ahhhhhh linguistics - always ruining our fun. But yeah, my definition of consistently may be different to someone elses definition. Do you think that matters?

Jeez, the definition of words within a definition are unstable - maybe 'historian' is open to interpretation too. I don't think linguistics offers much freedom from the issue. To us, it probably doesn't matters soo much (still to a minor extent), but maybe more so in the future, where words are susceptible to redefining or differing uses (I think you guys were talking about it with 'bitch' earlier or maybe thats a completely different thread)

Same here - went to Catholic schools all my life, despite personally being Agnostic. With that in mind, as an agnostic, I don't believe it is about evidence, because I personally don't believe their is evidence of the existence of a higher power - that is why I'm agnostic (again - no disrespect if anyone here is religious, this is just my personal belief). I think it is much to do with context, where you were born etc. I can guarantee that a Christian individual from Australia, everything else the same but born in India, would likely have grown up Hindu instead. Though there are a small minority of people that find religion later in life, for the most part it is something you are grow up with - it is contextual.

Ah, the 'evidence' I meant isn't really evidence tbh, thats what its usually advertised as in the articles and stuff I've read. I meant things like biblical prophecies that have come to fruition, some town with crumbled walls claimed to be Jericho (that place where the people yelled and played their trumpets, leading to the walls falling down), etc etc. I agree with what you've said though

Basically, what Hoggart looked at and discussed was this idea that what was "popular" was easily manipulated, and thus subject to propaganda, ideology and alterior motives, whereas there is this perception, that you also mention, that intellectuals and academics deal with their works in a different way. That there is a divide between what is "popular" and what is "intellectual". However, if you take into account to stuff that Zizek talks about, or just postmodernism in general, it is clear that even academic historians will be impacted by these same issues - it just may not be as obvious - or may even be obvious, but we miss it because we assume that it is more objective!!

Wow its like what we were talking about earlier with the issue of time, most of the histories that I condescend for their bias are all detached from our current historical context. If only I had the ideology glasses

And to anyone from HSC Discussion Group, you don't know what you're missing out on (you do because you're reading the thread, but thats not the point) - there's too much love and historiography going to waste whilst you're a mere "guest"
Edit: Historiography and love is pretty much the same thing

[sudodds]

Almost finished reading your Ancient notes, I have been reading them in between exams and they are so incredibly helpful. And, I’ve found that I’m laughing at bits which is really weird for a textbook (it's really conversational like, which is cool) . By this, would you argue that a textbook (e.g for Ancient) cannot be a historical work? Would you argue that a historical book would need a unique interpretation/hypothesis of an event?  What would differentiate a historical work from just a book about history? You talk about this, but how can you know the difference.

So glad you like them! Yeah I wanted to make sure that the tone was a lot more casual - like I wanted it to feel like what it is, a student talking to another student That's whats so great about the ATAR Notes books is that you are getting that student perspective, so i didn't want to lose that by being super formal.

Personally, I don't believe that a textbook is a historical work, due to the fact that, as you said, there is not "unique" interpretation, it is just telling you what you need to know to satisfy the syllabus. On the surface, there is no judgement being made as to how and why, as that is something the student needs to develop themselves (though of course, we know as history extension students that bias is everywhere, even when it is not intended). At its core, a textbook is purely to educate within very strict parameters, whereas a historical work, in my opinion, extended beyond the typical parameters, in order to provide a new perspective!

What do you think?

I really like your definition, although I do like the inclusion of the word consistently. However, even then what we define as consistently? How often/consistency does a historian need to work on their book?

I LOVE how nitpicky you all are this is great! Excellent point, because we're all going to have a different interpretation of "consistent". For me, I think its the case that to be a historian, one should be researching/working towards the production of a piece of work at least to a "part-time" capacity. What I mean by this is dedicating roughly the amount of hours per-week that a part-time student or employee dedicates to their studies/work, to history (but beyond at a "student" level - what I mean is independent research and inquiry).

However, I'm sure that this can be challenged. For example, if you had an individuals who worked on their history book very infrequently, but after 10 years finished and published a book. I would still consider them a historian. So the definition is still flawed.

However - do you think that matters? Do you think that a definition has to be completely and 100% accurate, all of the time? Or is it okay to be "mostly correct" with a few exceptions? What are the pros and cons of both?

I never thought of it this way but it makes sense. Another example of this (I think?) is Mary Beard wrote her book on Pompeii in 2010 and her documentary came out a lot more recently. Actually just found this article, Mary Beard it doesn't really matter if tourists damage Pompeii (don’t know if this is entirely historiological) but what are your thoughts on this?

Yeah Mary Beard is another fantastic example! As is Simon Schama's works.

Very interesting article, thank you so much for bringing it up! Definitely historiographical don't worry. Particularly love the point that she is making here:

"Pompeii's job, actually, is to interest us in the ancient world. That's what it's there for.

And the very idea that somehow it should be so carefully preserved that only a load of academics, rich people and television cameras are allowed actually there, while 10km down the road we build a little mock-up for the plebs, is ghastly."

Kinda paradoxical in a way - tourists promote an interest in history, while at the same time destroying the remnants of history that attract such interest. I guess it comes down to what is most important - preserving interest today, or securing interest in the future. I feel like, though I understand Beard's argument that say if a house falls in Pompeii due to tourism that is not that big of a deal, as tourists promote an interest in history, and it is more important to preserve that, what if in that house were artefacts and archeological evidence, now destroyed, that would have also peaked peoples interests?Though I don't think they should shut the site away from "non-academics", it is a bit excessive, the way that tourists can just walk freely through the town, a town that in comparison to other sites and museums is poorly protected. And I think, in a way, playing devils advocate, is it better to restrict tourist access, and lend it only to academics and film crews, who can then produce more works on the issue, which can still fuel interest in history, but at the same time, protect the sites, which will allow historians to satisfy interests for a longer period of time? (hope this makes sense).

What's your opinion?

Yeah, I was meaning fiction. Really want to watch Dunkirk now-hopefully after exams, what is it about? Understand all your arguments, like movies while, encompassing historical places/events still include a lot of fiction elements.

Dunkirk is about a real events that happened during WWII, whereby around 400 000 British soldiers were stranded and surrounded on a beach in France (Dunkirk). It was a pretty hopeless situation, and the Germans were picking off the soldiers from the air, and bombing/torpedo-ing all the large boats that came by to pick up the British soldiers and take them back home (which they really weren't that far away from - just across the Channel - something that many people swim across every year). What ended up happening is a lot of civilian boats were requisitioned by the army - like tiny fishing boats - to come and pick up the soldiers, and in some cases, civilians would actually be the ones manning the boats, risking their lives to come and help out the stranded soldiers - they ended up saving about 300 000 men, which was an incredible feat. Despite technically it being a loss, Churchill described it as one of the greatest successes. In England, it is a lot more famous of a story than in Australia (I used to hear about it all the time as a kid) - it's one of those classic "British pride" stories, but in my opinion its a much more positive one, than say "American Sniper". Here is the trailer if you're interested - as I said, highly recommend it, both as a history buff, and a film student

Never really thought about it this way as well! Now that I think about it, obviously museums and video games aren’t made by only one person and they aren’t really historians. I actually have no idea what my friends conclusions were. We had to present them to the class but I don’t do modern so I didn’t see hers and really wasn’t heaps interested at the time. I’m pretty sure, one of the main reasons she did it was to play video games . I might ask her after exams and get back to you.

Fantastic! Yeah defs ask her, because I'd love to hear what she came up with

Never heard of macrohistory before-sounds really cool! What types of issues/concerns does it look at?

An example of a macrohistorian would be someone like Yuval Noah Harari (he's the author of my all time, favourite book (and I'm including fiction works in this too), 'Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind').

Macro historians don't deal with say, one historical period, time or issue, but more so deal with ALL of human history, trying to find patterns, links and themes that can be extrapolated, to explain more broader human events and issues. For example, Yuval Noah Harari identifies different "ages" in all of human history (literally from pre-homo sapiens to present day), rather than closely looking at each historical event, through identifying four "revolutions":

The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BCE, when Sapiens evolved imagination).
The Agricultural Revolution (c. 12,000 BCE, the development of farming).
The unification of humankind (the gradual consolidation of human political organisations towards one global empire).
The Scientific Revolution (c. 1500 CE, the emergence of objective science).

If you'd like to hear more about Yuval Noah Harari and his thoughts and opinions, check out this Ted Talk that he did! Very interesting stuff.

Yeah, especially my two Camelot historians were really close to Kennedy and obviously this would have impacted their interpretations. What would you think if historians actually find Agrippina’s diaries? Would we consider them historical documents and her a historian or would there need to be more of a sense of personal detachment from this?Before history extension, I actually knew hardly anything about Kennedy, except for the assassination. I also know barely anything on US presidents so I can’t judge him well. I think he was trying to be a good person but some of the problems were caused by his incompetency and his youth as president. Not all of his actions were fantastic-The Bay of Pigs was pretty much a disaster (he relied a lot on his advisors at the time) and there are arguments that his actions led to American involvement in the Vietnam War. Kinda weird how influential the Camelot historians have been in shaping our views of Kennedy.

Personally I wouldn't consider her a historian. It would be a historical document in the sense that it would be an official, historical source, however I would not go as far as to say she is a historian, because she wasn't writing about history, but her own life. It's history to us now, but it was very much her own experience (especially as they were diaries, and not a memoir). I studied the American presidents a fair amount last year in Modern history - particularly those during the Cold War era. I found my views of Kennedy greatly challenged by the course - particularly when we looked at the Bay of Pigs, but also his response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, whereby apparently he was an absolutely wreck mentally most of the time (though obviously quite understandably, considering it was a very tense period). Super interesting individual, who hopefully I'll get to learn about more one day.

Are all revisionist historians always critical of the initial interpretations? Do they write only to challenge the views of prior historians? Is this their initial hypothesis, which sounds really biased/subjective to me.

Well, to be a revisionist, you kind of have to be (at least in my opinion). Though I am sure many revisionist historians have done a lot of research to back up their views, and it is genuinely their opinion based on evidence (and of course, their socio-philosophical/political context), I believe that there are many historians who write revisionist histories purely in order to be "alternative" - eg. Holocaust deniers are technically revisionists. Can you think of any reason why this might be the case?

Yeah, definitely stuff like his affair may have affected his precedency. We never got to study his affair in class. Out of the five topics we could have studied my class is doing Cuba, Kennedy and Khrushchev and Indochina. My teacher said that sometimes the essays on his private life aren’t as sophisticated as the ones that my class is doing. It would be really interesting though.

Ahhh cool! Your teacher has picked some really interesting topics anyway, so I wouldn't feel too bad aha - we studied all of those topics last year during my Cold War unit in Modern History. Definitely some of the most interesting stuff - particularly Khrushchev, he's a real character.

For the “reclaim history” statement I think it was because he believed of a false narrative-however, there may be something more significant (not really sure).I think that he was a lot more balanced then the other historical schools that did write about Kennedy. While I think that he presents both side of the argument, he still uses some judgements about the event and isn’t truly 100% impartial.Thanks heaps again Susie! Don’t worry about my procrastination (this was heaps more fun!), also counting this as study for my extension exam on Tuesday! 

Ahhh okay then Definitely something I would consider looking into though - may be a good way of finding some really interesting angle that you can incorporate into your essays to give you a bit more of an edge!

No worries! And yessss, good luck!! I'm sure you'll smash it

Susie

[sudodds]

Hello humans of Extension History

HELLO!

for everyone doing Western Imperialism I suggest using Niall Ferguson. Whether or not you agree with what he says he is a really good example of one approach towards the topic.

Hells yeah a Western Imperialism student!! Finally And I totally agree, Niall Ferguson was one of my most frequently used historians, as he's both one that has some really really controversial opinions, but is still a fantastic historian as far as methodologies and writing is concerned. Though I wholeheartedly disagree with his assessment, he is definitely one of the best historians to use if you're a Western Imperialism student.

So for a question such as " 'History isn't really about the past. It is about how we engage with the past' To what extent does your engagement with historian's debate in your chosen case study reflect this view?"
I interpreted this question to be discussing a range of issues but I chose to talk about two one being; The restrictions of the historians prejudice and perspective.

Yeah definitely! This is a super important issue, that particularly for such an emotionally charged and controversial issue as Western Imperialism, that still, most certainly has lasting social, political and economic impacts both in Britain and abroad would be highly critical to the way in which historians construct their histories.

From the question I suggested using the arguments that all historians choose to react and represent a perspective of history whether it be subconcious or concious.

I love the addition of "subconcious or concious", as I think this is really important when it comes to not only Western Imperialism, but historiography in general! Though of course context and ideology is going to be impactful no matter what, I don't think there are many historian (many - not all) who go into writing history with the intent of say (in relation to Western Imperialism) justifying Brexit. Like I personally believe most historians truely do have good intentions (aha "good intentions", aha Schama ), its just that good intentions don't change the inevitable - that ideology and context is all pervasive, inescapable and all consuming.

However, at the same time, I do believe that there other historians that DO write with either a clear purpose, or one that I'm sure they would have at least considered. For example, Simon Schama was commissioned by the Tories in England (the conservative party in the UK, for anyone who is unaware aha), despite being a Labour Party supporter, to construct his history. This commissioning I'm sure would have impacted his works in a conscious way, as would the British Government allow for the publication, under their name, of a highly critical assessment of their actions? Probably not. So instead, Schama's interpretation is of the "Empire of Good Intentions", suggesting that though the outcome may have not been the best, the government (and the men who made up the government) had only "the very best of intentions" when they decided to start their imperial quest. The purpose of Vladimir Lenin's work "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" is also quite conscious.

This is really important particularly to the statment "it is about how we engage with the past”(this was the CSSA  trial  for 2016). For this point I used the argument that  Ferguson neglects the evidence and perspectives of the periphery, he often relies on official documents and sources such as diary entries of colonists.

Love the link to methodologies here - defs one of the best (and easiest!) things to include in your essay, that so many people just seem to forget to do. I myself was guilty of neglecting it, as it was something that I just found boring, but in hindsight, I wish I used it more, as it is a really great, simple way to pull a part a historians ideas. In regards to Ferguson, you can link this to Empiricism and his "Top Down approach" to history!

This obviously impacts his argument as many of the critiques of Western Imperialism lie in their treatment of traditional peoples. Because of this Ferguson presents an image that is heavily economic and at times glorifies the work of Imperialists.

One of the best quotes, that pretty much just sums up Ferguson's argument: “Once the British had come to Africa to stamp out slavery and spread Christianity, their motives for carving the continent up like a cake were very different. One-part economics, one-part grand strategy, no part altruism”.

Why do you think that he glorifies imperialists?

His assesment of the impact of WI is generally positive he uses Exceptionalism and anecdotal or counterfactual history to represent colonialism.

Again, great use of methodology here! Exceptionalism especially has some super interesting implications, especially in regards to today, whereby the UK something in this era that they haven't experienced for a very long time - not being the dominant world power. Potentially you can attribute this to Ferguson's commercial success as a historian - the nation is looking for a way to validate and regain their sense of "prestige" and "pride" - and that is achieved through a focus on their history as a "dominant" force.

For example he states in the first episode of his documentry "Empire; how Britain made the modern world" that "toady we live in a world dominated by a single superpower..the United States". Here Ferguson draws parralles to the 'superpowers' of the past and the leading economic position of many countries.

exactly   As Ferguson is also pretty pro-America, this also has a lot of historiographical and political implications, as one could argue that through presenting a sympathetic, and even positive view of British imperial expansion, he is justifying American imperial expansion, through their mutual aim to spread Western ideals (in particular Capitalism).

From similar statements in his materials it is evident that  he is almost warning America about  the flaws of Great Britains ’superpower’ reign and not to make the same mistakes that brought it’s downfall . Here you could argue that perhaps America is not the leading economic power and look for the reasoning behind Fergusons position or you could move on. I chose not to rant and to move on.

Interesting! Yeah I can definitely see how you could argue this as well - like "don't make the same mistakes we did" kinda thing! Great assessment. I mean, personally I would love to hear your rant But also totes keen to hear your other arguments, so yes, lets move on shall we

The next bit I spoke about was the nature of the accessibilty of Ferguson's work.

Yesssss fantastic point! Ferguson's works are definitely really accessible, in the sense that they are really well written and interesting to read, rather than being super dense. Like, they're exciting - take the chapter 'Maxim Force' for example, just so exciting and interesting, despite dealing with non-fiction issues, which many people (not me, and hopefully not many people here, but many people in general ) find super boring. This links really well with something that you can actually discuss in Section I as well - the conflict between academic and "popular" history - because Ferguson is most definitely a popular historian. His documentary series as well is an excellent example of popular history, that airs early evening I believe, when most people are watching television in the UK. If you just look at the construction of his documentary as well - I mean the intro to the Maxim Force episode of his doco is literally an instrumental from a Dr Dre song aha (Fergy is down with da kids  ) - but the point I am making here is Ferguson understands popular culture and what sells, which has contributed to the success of his works.

This point could lead into the semiotics debate as suggested by Saussure however this requires alot of preparation and I know I didnt include it in my practice paper. The reason it is relevant is because Ferguson uses a lot of visual historical reconstruction in his documentries. Saussure's debate would argue (I think) that everything has different meanings to different people. And that despite the fact that there are patterns in symbols and at times symbols can universally accepted or seem obvious to some they still rely on context and as a result cannot always be counted as effective communiction. For example whereas some things may be intended to convey economic or military prowess other could percieve them to represent oppression. This relates to the Source statement " 'History isn't really about the past. It is about how we engage with the past’ because the evidence of past studied by previous historians is the evidence  that we generally have. Therefore if  it is misinterpreted or tampered with, especially through symbols it is easy to continue that legacy of  misinterpretation.

What a fantastic point! And one that I'm very sure that your teacher will like Links well to this, not so academic-y example that I brought up a few months ago. You can find what I said in the spoiler

Spoiler

This week on 'Susie historiographically dissects a harmless video designed purely for entertainment purposes'....

I was scrolling through facebook today and I found this really funny, short video, on how the word "bitch" is actually one of the most multipurpose and "communicative" words in the english language! And like always, I decided to ruin the fun of the video by instead attempting to analyse it through the lens of Derrida/Foucault style linguistics 

Basically, I think a really interesting and important historiographical issue (that you can defs mention in your essays) is ever-changing, ever-subjective role of language - particularly written language. As the video suggests, a single word may have infinite meanings, a lot of which can be understood through facial expressions and vocal inflections. However, what happens when that similarly subjective word if written down on paper? We lose that ability to understand intent, which presents significant problems to history! What happens if, through language, we misinterpret the intent of the source? Or a historians work? In the on-going game of historical chinese whispers, the subjective role of language could literally change history.

For example - lets say someone was attempting to understand the relationship between two people from the past, lets call them Anna and Bea. We recover a bunch of facebook conversations between them, but they're disjointed (like most sources are). One message from Anna reads: "omg bitch I literally hate you." From just that one message, someone might interpret that as meaning they are archenemies, when in reality Anna may have been responding to finding out that Bea gets an extra week of holiday - the "bitch" and the "i hate you" more an indication of their friendship, as they are comfortable enough with each other to say that without fear of causing offence.

The above is obviously a very arbitrary example - but you get the point. To what extent does the nature of language itself limit our ability to construct an accurate history? Is history not only plagued by the subjectiveness of the historian in terms of their socio-philosophical context and beliefs, but furthermore the inescapable subjectiveness of its very foundations? Is there any way to get around this? Can you think of any other examples (maybe even actual historical examples) of the way in which language fails us?

Would love to hear your thoughts

Susie

I also read the first two chapters of John Vincent’s ‘An Intelligent person’s guide to History’ and I think John Vincent is really good for the evidence/historical engagement argument.

Vincent ma boi.

His whole argument is about evidence and is as   such is perfect for this question. Vincent states that  history is all about evidence however he stresses the importance of written evidence for the sole reason that it survives. Here written evidence represents coins, epigraphy and any texts.

Do you think there are any limitations to this? For example, there are some cultures (Aboriginal Australian culture I believe is a good example) that does not focus upon the written word to record their history and stories, but have a much stronger tradition of "oral history". Does focusing on written evidence mean that we compromise understanding the history of these cultures as well?

Although this is really important it ‘is an infinitesimal part’ of the past  and as result is open to many flaws. One such flaw is that “history is about literate societies…tilted towards literate people’. This only represents in Vincent’s words ’the study of stable, hierarchical, agricultural, aristocratic and  religious societies” and  neglects anything  outside that criterion.

Yeah exactly! (i really need to start reading the full response because I start responding to sections aha)

For example take religious texts such as the Bible and the Qur’an and the impact they have had on societies. Whereas Vincent compares this to “hunting, nomadic, pastoral or gathering people’. This argument is crucial to the example of Western Imperialism as it addresses the obvious partiality towards certain types of history due to the lack of indigenous evidence in places such as Africa where societies had developed communication and historical techniques that   did not rely on epigraphical or written sources.   

Yes, yes, yes!!! This was actually not a link that I made last year, and I was obsessed with Vincent's work. Smart cookie Lev But yes, totally agree.

Obviously this isn't applicable  to every question however I feel like these points could work for most evidence questions

Fantastic work Lev DB! You raise some really fantastic arguments and some awesome points - had a lot of fun reading and dissecting. Good luck with your exam tomorrow!!! I'm sure you will absolutely smash it Be sure to come back and let us know how it went - and please, come back to this thread any time you want to test out an argument

Susie

[katie,rinos]

Personally, I don't believe that a textbook is a historical work, due to the fact that, as you said, there is not "unique" interpretation, it is just telling you what you need to know to satisfy the syllabus. On the surface, there is no judgement being made as to how and why, as that is something the student needs to develop themselves (though of course, we know as history extension students that bias is everywhere, even when it is not intended). At its core, a textbook is purely to educate within very strict parameters, whereas a historical work, in my opinion, extended beyond the typical parameters, in order to provide a new perspective!

What do you think?

Yeah, I agree with this.
I think that a textbook will basically mirror quotes and archeological evidence in a strictly formatted way. Also, how in an Ancient essay you wouldn’t quote Ken Webb, or any other textbook author as they aren't considered a historian. However, a historical work offers more unique evidence, interpretations and perspectives.

I LOVE how nitpicky you all are this is great! Excellent point, because we're all going to have a different interpretation of "consistent". For me, I think its the case that to be a historian, one should be researching/working towards the production of a piece of work at least to a "part-time" capacity. What I mean by this is dedicating roughly the amount of hours per-week that a part-time student or employee dedicates to their studies/work, to history (but beyond at a "student" level - what I mean is independent research and inquiry).

However, I'm sure that this can be challenged. For example, if you had an individuals who worked on their history book very infrequently, but after 10 years finished and published a book. I would still consider them a historian. So the definition is still flawed.

However - do you think that matters? Do you think that a definition has to be completely and 100% accurate, all of the time? Or is it okay to be "mostly correct" with a few exceptions? What are the pros and cons of both?

Man-linguistics it’s really interesting but so annoying! I don’t know if we can have a definition that can fit everything perfectly and which is 100% accurate all of the time. I think that if we can have differing interpretations of singular words then how can we have one definition that we all interpret the same way.
I don’t actually really know. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think a definition needs to be, or even can be 100% accurate all the time?

Yeah Mary Beard is another fantastic example! As is Simon Schama's works.
Very interesting article, thank you so much for bringing it up! Definitely historiographical don't worry. Particularly love the point that she is making here:

"Pompeii's job, actually, is to interest us in the ancient world. That's what it's there for.

And the very idea that somehow it should be so carefully preserved that only a load of academics, rich people and television cameras are allowed actually there, while 10km down the road we build a little mock-up for the plebs, is ghastly."

Kinda paradoxical in a way - tourists promote an interest in history, while at the same time destroying the remnants of history that attract such interest. I guess it comes down to what is most important - preserving interest today, or securing interest in the future. I feel like, though I understand Beard's argument that say if a house falls in Pompeii due to tourism that is not that big of a deal, as tourists promote an interest in history, and it is more important to preserve that, what if in that house were artefacts and archeological evidence, now destroyed, that would have also peaked peoples interests?Though I don't think they should shut the site away from "non-academics", it is a bit excessive, the way that tourists can just walk freely through the town, a town that in comparison to other sites and museums is poorly protected. And I think, in a way, playing devils advocate, is it better to restrict tourist access, and lend it only to academics and film crews, who can then produce more works on the issue, which can still fuel interest in history, but at the same time, protect the sites, which will allow historians to satisfy interests for a longer period of time? (hope this makes sense).
What's your opinion?

I would really love to visit Pompeii and Herculaneum. So, in that way I’d hate for it to be closed down. However, 2.5 million tourists at Pompeii and 500,000 at Herculaneum a year is a lot! About 6850 people a day on average in Pompeii! I think that maybe there should be parameters/restrictions on how many people can be at the site at one time. Personally, I would hate to be at Pompeii and have another almost 7000 people around me, in what is a fairly small site (I just compared its area to some of the towns near me and its tiny). Obviously with that many people at Pompeii, it would be difficult for artefacts not to be destroyed. And if even a small amount of the tourists grabbed a ‘souvenir’ of the site there would be so many small fragments missing. I think that it would be good for the site because tourists bring in a lot of money and public interest however there are so many negatives as well.

I think that while working on tourism, Italy/Pompeii should also try not to neglect the artefacts and remains of Pompeii. If a house fell over with valuable artifacts/evidence, I feel like it would be a waste if this could have been prevented. I think that initially the remains/destruction would spark public interest in a ‘why aren’t we preserving Pompeii better?’ way, but then they would probably end up forgotten.

I understand the film crew idea as we are both interested in Pompeii and have never been, and have seen a few documentaries and stuff on it. I would love to go, but if the sites were able to be preserved for a lot longer, is this a better idea?

Dunkirk is about a real events that happened during WWII, whereby around 400 000 British soldiers were stranded and surrounded on a beach in France (Dunkirk). It was a pretty hopeless situation, and the Germans were picking off the soldiers from the air, and bombing/torpedo-ing all the large boats that came by to pick up the British soldiers and take them back home (which they really weren't that far away from - just across the Channel - something that many people swim across every year). What ended up happening is a lot of civilian boats were requisitioned by the army - like tiny fishing boats - to come and pick up the soldiers, and in some cases, civilians would actually be the ones manning the boats, risking their lives to come and help out the stranded soldiers - they ended up saving about 300 000 men, which was an incredible feat. Despite technically it being a loss, Churchill described it as one of the greatest successes. In England, it is a lot more famous of a story than in Australia (I used to hear about it all the time as a kid) - it's one of those classic "British pride" stories, but in my opinion its a much more positive one, than say "American Sniper". Here is the trailer if you're interested - as I said, highly recommend it, both as a history buff, and a film student

It looks so interesting! To be honest, the only thing I knew about the movie before this was that Harry Styles was in it. Isn’t it weird that I’ve never heard of Dunkirk before-like I could tell you heaps about Australia’s involvement in WW1 (especially Gallipoli), but nothing about Dunkirk.

An example of a macrohistorian would be someone like Yuval Noah Harari (he's the author of my all time, favourite book (and I'm including fiction works in this too), 'Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind').

I’m going to have to add this to my ever-growing list of books to read after HSC. What do you like so much about it? Do you have any other great book (history related or otherwise) recommendations that I should read?

Macro historians don't deal with say, one historical period, time or issue, but more so deal with ALL of human history, trying to find patterns, links and themes that can be extrapolated, to explain more broader human events and issues. For example, Yuval Noah Harari identifies different "ages" in all of human history (literally from pre-homo sapiens to present day), rather than closely looking at each historical event, through identifying four "revolutions":

The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BCE, when Sapiens evolved imagination).
The Agricultural Revolution (c. 12,000 BCE, the development of farming).
The unification of humankind (the gradual consolidation of human political organisations towards one global empire).
The Scientific Revolution (c. 1500 CE, the emergence of objective science).

If you'd like to hear more about Yuval Noah Harari and his thoughts and opinions, check out this Ted Talk that he did! Very interesting stuff.

I found this really interesting. I like his idea that the only reason humans cooperate with each other on such a wide scale is due to stories/imagination. At first I was a bit doubtful, but no animal besides humans would use money and our society revolves around money (and working to get more money). I’m not sure if we are covering this in class, however I might read up on more of this later.

Personally I wouldn't consider her a historian. It would be a historical document in the sense that it would be an official, historical source, however I would not go as far as to say she is a historian, because she wasn't writing about history, but her own life. It's history to us now, but it was very much her own experience (especially as they were diaries, and not a memoir). I studied the American presidents a fair amount last year in Modern history - particularly those during the Cold War era. I found my views of Kennedy greatly challenged by the course - particularly when we looked at the Bay of Pigs, but also his response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, whereby apparently he was an absolutely wreck mentally most of the time (though obviously quite understandably, considering it was a very tense period). Super interesting individual, who hopefully I'll get to learn about more one day.

Ok, makes sense. So because this is such a personal text she hasn’t really researched anything and therefore she shouldn’t be considered a historian. It’s just her experiences and opinions about what has happened.

Well, to be a revisionist, you kind of have to be (at least in my opinion). Though I am sure many revisionist historians have done a lot of research to back up their views, and it is genuinely their opinion based on evidence (and of course, their socio-philosophical/political context), I believe that there are many historians who write revisionist histories purely in order to be "alternative" - eg. Holocaust deniers are technically revisionists. Can you think of any reason why this might be the case?

Not too sure really. Some revisionist histories would definitely be more controversial then the initially accepted ideas which could lead to more publicity. Are they sometimes more dramatic? In the case of Kennedy, Hersh’s book is titled The Dark Side of Camelot (which is really overly dramatic). With my major, one of the historians (Goldhagen) wrote refuting the initials (Browning’s) hypothesis (he believed the book ‘failed in its central interpretation’). Goldhagen’s book ended up being criticized a lot more than Browning’s but gained international recognition.  I don’t really know why you would want to deny the Holocaust though.
What are your thoughts on this?

Ahhh cool! Your teacher has picked some really interesting topics anyway, so I wouldn't feel too bad aha - we studied all of those topics last year during my Cold War unit in Modern History. Definitely some of the most interesting stuff - particularly Khrushchev, he's a real character.

Yeah, they are really cool and interesting!

Ahhh okay then Definitely something I would consider looking into though - may be a good way of finding some really interesting angle that you can incorporate into your essays to give you a bit more of an edge!

I might research this more after trials! Would be cool to have some more unique information for my essays!

No worries! And yessss, good luck!! I'm sure you'll smash it
Susie

Thanks heaps Susie!!
Katie

[sudodds]

Hello hello hello! Long time no see I have a question for y'all (the plan is one per week in the lead up to HSC!)

I'm in the process of trying to learn more about Nazi Germany and WWII. Though I love love loved learning about Russia and the Cold War last year, I definitely feel as though not knowing much about Nazi Germany/WWII is a pretty big chunk of modern history that I just know hardly anything about! So I've started reading 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William L. Shirer. It's really good so far (about 100 pages in - only 900 to go  ), but in particular I found the foreword of all things super interesting! You can read the whole thing here, but I particularly liked this extract;

Spoiler

Some may think that it is much too early to try to write a history of the Third Reich, that such a task should be left to a later generation of writers to whom time has given perspective. I found this view especially prevalent in France when I went to do some research there. Nothing more recent than the Napoleonic era, I was told, should be tackled by writers of history.

There is much merit in this view. Most historians have waited fifty years or a hundred, or more, before attempting to write an account of a country, an empire, an era. But was this not principally because it took that long for the pertinent documents to come to light and furnish them with the authentic material they needed? And though perspective was gained, was not something lost because the authors necessarily lacked a personal acquaintance with the life and the atmosphere of the times and with the historical figures about which they wrote?

In the case of the Third Reich, and it is a unique case, almost all of the documentary material became available at its fall, and it has been enriched by the testimony of all the surviving leaders, military and civilian, in some instances before their death by execution. With such incomparable sources so soon available and with the memory of life in Nazi Germany and of the appearance and behavior and nature of the men who ruled it, Adolf Hitler above all, still fresh in my mind and bones, I decided, at any rate, to make an attempt to set down the history of the rise and fall of the Third Reich.

“I lived through the whole war,” Thucydides remarks in his History of the Peloponnesian War, one of the greatest works of history ever written, “being of an age to comprehend events and giving my attention to them in order to know the exact truth about them.”

I found it extremely difficult and not always possible to learn the exact truth about Hitler’s Germany. The avalanche of documentary material helped one further along the road to truth than would have seemed possible twenty years ago, but its very vastness could often be confusing. And inall human records and testimony there are bound to be baffling contradictions.

No doubt my own prejudices, which inevitably spring from my experience and make-up, creep through the pages of this book from time to time. I detest totalitarian dictatorships in principle and came to loathe this one the more I lived through it and watched its ugly assault upon the human spirit. Nevertheless, in this book I have tried to be severely objective, letting the facts speak for themselves and noting the source for each. No incidents, scenes or quotations stem from the imagination; all are based on documents, the testimony of eyewitnesses or my own personal observation. In the half-dozen or so occasions in which there is some speculation, where the facts are missing, this is plainly labeled as such.

My interpretations, I have no doubt, will be disputed by many. That is inevitable, since no man’s opinions are infallible. Those that I have ventured here in order to add clarity and depth to this narrative are merely the best I could come by from the evidence and from what knowledge and experience I have had.

From having a read, I have two questions that I'd like you to discuss

1. Do you agree with Shirer's argument that you can write history on events in recent memory, or do you believe that a considerable amount of time should pass before attempting? Why/why not?

2. Shirer takes the time to outline his limitations, and warns us that their may be small flaws within the work due to his own prejudices, however that he has attempted, to the best of his ability to limit this. Why do you think he felt the need to do this - isn't the point of writing history to justify why your interpretation is the truth? Is that the point? Do you think that by including this warning within the foreword he is increasing the reliability of his work?

Keen to hear your thoughts!!

Susie

[katie,rinos]

Hello hello hello! Long time no see I have a question for y'all (the plan is one per week in the lead up to HSC!)

Yay!!   

I'm in the process of trying to learn more about Nazi Germany and WWII. Though I love love loved learning about Russia and the Cold War last year, I definitely feel as though not knowing much about Nazi Germany/WWII is a pretty big chunk of modern history that I just know hardly anything about! So I've started reading 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William L. Shirer. It's really good so far (about 100 pages in - only 900 to go  ), but in particular I found the foreword of all things super interesting! You can read the whole thing here, but I particularly liked this extract;

Spoiler

Some may think that it is much too early to try to write a history of the Third Reich, that such a task should be left to a later generation of writers to whom time has given perspective. I found this view especially prevalent in France when I went to do some research there. Nothing more recent than the Napoleonic era, I was told, should be tackled by writers of history.

There is much merit in this view. Most historians have waited fifty years or a hundred, or more, before attempting to write an account of a country, an empire, an era. But was this not principally because it took that long for the pertinent documents to come to light and furnish them with the authentic material they needed? And though perspective was gained, was not something lost because the authors necessarily lacked a personal acquaintance with the life and the atmosphere of the times and with the historical figures about which they wrote?

In the case of the Third Reich, and it is a unique case, almost all of the documentary material became available at its fall, and it has been enriched by the testimony of all the surviving leaders, military and civilian, in some instances before their death by execution. With such incomparable sources so soon available and with the memory of life in Nazi Germany and of the appearance and behavior and nature of the men who ruled it, Adolf Hitler above all, still fresh in my mind and bones, I decided, at any rate, to make an attempt to set down the history of the rise and fall of the Third Reich.

“I lived through the whole war,” Thucydides remarks in his History of the Peloponnesian War, one of the greatest works of history ever written, “being of an age to comprehend events and giving my attention to them in order to know the exact truth about them.”

I found it extremely difficult and not always possible to learn the exact truth about Hitler’s Germany. The avalanche of documentary material helped one further along the road to truth than would have seemed possible twenty years ago, but its very vastness could often be confusing. And inall human records and testimony there are bound to be baffling contradictions.

No doubt my own prejudices, which inevitably spring from my experience and make-up, creep through the pages of this book from time to time. I detest totalitarian dictatorships in principle and came to loathe this one the more I lived through it and watched its ugly assault upon the human spirit. Nevertheless, in this book I have tried to be severely objective, letting the facts speak for themselves and noting the source for each. No incidents, scenes or quotations stem from the imagination; all are based on documents, the testimony of eyewitnesses or my own personal observation. In the half-dozen or so occasions in which there is some speculation, where the facts are missing, this is plainly labeled as such.

My interpretations, I have no doubt, will be disputed by many. That is inevitable, since no man’s opinions are infallible. Those that I have ventured here in order to add clarity and depth to this narrative are merely the best I could come by from the evidence and from what knowledge and experience I have had.

From having a read, I have two questions that I'd like you to discuss

1. Do you agree with Shirer's argument that you can write history on events in recent memory, or do you believe that a considerable amount of time should pass before attempting? Why/why not?

I find Nazi Germany/WW2 history really interesting ! I know a lot more about it then Russian history.
I believe that you can write history on events in recent memory, however only if and when there is a sufficient amount of evidence that a historian can work with (so they are not only going off personal recollection.) As Shirer explains of Nazi Germany, “almost all documentary material became available at its fall, and it has been enriched by the testimony of all the surviving leaders, military and civilian”, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t write with all of this available evidence (so much that he cannot read it all).

However, I believe that writing this soon after the event could impact on the historian’s objectivity. He would be impacted by his personal experiences of the terrible things that happened in WW2, much more so writing 15yrs afterwards then say writing after 200 years(if he had never experienced it himself). Although, as you have said he does acknowledge the existence of his own personal bias/prejudices wishing to limit them.

What do you believe? Do you think there is a suitable time a historian needs to wait, what is it, and why?

2. Shirer takes the time to outline his limitations, and warns us that their may be small flaws within the work due to his own prejudices, however that he has attempted, to the best of his ability to limit this. Why do you think he felt the need to do this - isn't the point of writing history to justify why your interpretation is the truth? Is that the point? Do you think that by including this warning within the foreword he is increasing the reliability of his work?

Keen to hear your thoughts!!

Susie

I 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!

[angelt]

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. 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.