HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History

How would you go about answering this question from 2007??

(1/1)

palebluedot:
Hi everyone!

My EXT teacher gave us this question for homework. Ive been sitting on it for 1 week and dont know where to start.

Its from the 2007 paper.


What History is
How do historians... make history? By that I mean what consequences flow from the fact that all the events and processes in ‘the past’ are ‘turned’ by the historian into that narrative we call history? ... What are some of the consequences that flow from this view of history as a narrative about the past constructed by the historian in the present?

Much of the debate on viewing history as the narrative construction of the historian, is [whether] this judgement distorts what history is, what historians do, and it reflects upon the objectivity and truth seeking nature of the exercise...

The study of the past has never been static. The practice of history has witnessed many shifts and turns in the way it is thought and undertaken... In spite of this rich variety of methodological developments or shifts and turns of interest, the foundational way historians ‘know things about the past’ has been unchallenged. Despite the use of statistics, the new themes (society, women, gender, culture) and the application of fresh concepts and theories, there remain two steady points in the historians cosmos: empiricism and rational analysis...

Doubts about the empirical-analytical as the privileged path to historical knowing have emerged. This has not happened in history alone, of course. In all the arts, humanities, social sciences and even the physical and life sciences, the question is increasinlgly being put: how can we be sure that empiricism and inference really does get us close to the true meaning of the past? In history, how can we trust our sources - not because they are forgeries or missing, but because of the claims of empiricism is forced to make about our ability not only to find the date, but also just as importantly represent their meaning accurately? It is not an abstract or scholastic philosophical question to ask, where does meaning come from in history? It is the past itself? Is its meaning simply ushered in by the historian? Is the historian merely the midwife to the truth of the past? Or is this historian unavoidably implicated in the creation of a meaning for the past? Does the past contain one true meaning or several? Is there one story to be discovered or several that can be legitimately generated? I think most historians today would agree on the latter analysis. The difference comes over the consequences of that implication, and what it does for truth. In other words, is it the historian who provides the truth of the past as she represents it rather than as she finds it?...

And the very big question, is history what happened? Or what historians tell us happened?

_________________________________________________________________________

With close reference to the issues raised by Munslow, critically evaluate the role of the historian in the construction of history.

Support your argument with reference to at least TWO sources you have studied



Ive never done an essay for EXT before so im not to keen on this :(

When it comes to planning what exactly should i do? and in relation to my sources im thinking herodotus (because his works were some what empiricism - i think - ) but not sure who/what else.


thanks!!!

katie,rinos:
Hey,
So the way that I planned my essays is by first reading over the source a few times. I would then highlight the main points/arguments that would refer to the question (around 3-4 points). State if I agree/disagree with them (in this case I agree with them all). Link some historians and briefly explain why and then number the order of my points.

These are the arguments that I got (you could definitely have got different one’s though-I haven’t done this in ages). I’ve added a few historians but I’m not too sure which one’s your up too-you can use different historians if you haven’t studied these yet.

What History is
How do historians... make history? By that I mean what consequences flow from the fact that all the events and processes in ‘the past’ are ‘turned’ by the historian into that narrative we call history? ... What are some of the consequences that flow from this view of history as a narrative about the past constructed by the historian in the present?

Much of the debate on viewing history as the narrative construction of the historian, is [whether] this judgement distorts what history is, what historians do, and it reflects upon the objectivity and truth seeking nature of the exercise...

The study of the past has never been static. The practice of history has witnessed many shifts and turns in the way it is thought and undertaken... In spite of this rich variety of methodological developments or shifts and turns of interest, the foundational way historians ‘know things about the past’ has been unchallenged. Despite the use of statistics, the new themes (society, women, gender, culture) and the application of fresh concepts and theories, there remain two steady points in the historians cosmos: empiricism and rational analysis...

Doubts about the empirical-analytical as the privileged path to historical knowing have emerged. This has not happened in history alone, of course. In all the arts, humanities, social sciences and even the physical and life sciences, the question is increasinlgly being put: how can we be sure that empiricism and inference really does get us close to the true meaning of the past? In history, how can we trust our sources - not because they are forgeries or missing, but because of the claims of empiricism is forced to make about our ability not only to find the date, but also just as importantly represent their meaning accurately? It is not an abstract or scholastic philosophical question to ask, where does meaning come from in history? It is the past itself? Is its meaning simply ushered in by the historian? Is the historian merely the midwife to the truth of the past? Or is this historian unavoidably implicated in the creation of a meaning for the past? Does the past contain one true meaning or several? Is there one story to be discovered or several that can be legitimately generated? I think most historians today would agree on the latter analysis. The difference comes over the consequences of that implication, and what it does for truth. In other words, is it the historian who provides the truth of the past as she represents it rather than as she finds it?...

And the very big question, is history what happened? Or what historians tell us happened?

With close reference to the issues raised by Munslow, critically evaluate the role of the historian in the construction of history.

Support your argument with reference to at least TWO sources you have studied

My Arguments:
History=construction of a narrative [story telling?]
Role= Construct an objective history (Historians could be Von Ranke who was an empiricist historian who had a strict analysis of sources. However, wished to find the ‘signature of God’, and only used sources from Venetian ambassadors.)
Role=Determine truth from sources (empiricist part). [Bolded bit=Herodotus believed that his role as a historian was that If he heard several versions of a story, he provides them all and invites readers to make up their own minds.]
Role of the historian=Interpretation of sources (Historians could possibly be Carr-fishmonger analogy, ‘history includes interpretation’, ‘study the historian before you study the facts’).

Hope this helps :D

palebluedot:

--- Quote from: katie,rinos on January 28, 2018, 10:55:31 am ---Hey,
So the way that I planned my essays is by first reading over the source a few times. I would then highlight the main points/arguments that would refer to the question (around 3-4 points). State if I agree/disagree with them (in this case I agree with them all). Link some historians and briefly explain why and then number the order of my points.

These are the arguments that I got (you could definitely have got different one’s though-I haven’t done this in ages). I’ve added a few historians but I’m not too sure which one’s your up too-you can use different historians if you haven’t studied these yet.

What History is
How do historians... make history? By that I mean what consequences flow from the fact that all the events and processes in ‘the past’ are ‘turned’ by the historian into that narrative we call history? ... What are some of the consequences that flow from this view of history as a narrative about the past constructed by the historian in the present?

Much of the debate on viewing history as the narrative construction of the historian, is [whether] this judgement distorts what history is, what historians do, and it reflects upon the objectivity and truth seeking nature of the exercise...

The study of the past has never been static. The practice of history has witnessed many shifts and turns in the way it is thought and undertaken... In spite of this rich variety of methodological developments or shifts and turns of interest, the foundational way historians ‘know things about the past’ has been unchallenged. Despite the use of statistics, the new themes (society, women, gender, culture) and the application of fresh concepts and theories, there remain two steady points in the historians cosmos: empiricism and rational analysis...

Doubts about the empirical-analytical as the privileged path to historical knowing have emerged. This has not happened in history alone, of course. In all the arts, humanities, social sciences and even the physical and life sciences, the question is increasinlgly being put: how can we be sure that empiricism and inference really does get us close to the true meaning of the past? In history, how can we trust our sources - not because they are forgeries or missing, but because of the claims of empiricism is forced to make about our ability not only to find the date, but also just as importantly represent their meaning accurately? It is not an abstract or scholastic philosophical question to ask, where does meaning come from in history? It is the past itself? Is its meaning simply ushered in by the historian? Is the historian merely the midwife to the truth of the past? Or is this historian unavoidably implicated in the creation of a meaning for the past? Does the past contain one true meaning or several? Is there one story to be discovered or several that can be legitimately generated? I think most historians today would agree on the latter analysis. The difference comes over the consequences of that implication, and what it does for truth. In other words, is it the historian who provides the truth of the past as she represents it rather than as she finds it?...

And the very big question, is history what happened? Or what historians tell us happened?

With close reference to the issues raised by Munslow, critically evaluate the role of the historian in the construction of history.

Support your argument with reference to at least TWO sources you have studied

My Arguments:
History=construction of a narrative [story telling?]
Role= Construct an objective history (Historians could be Von Ranke who was an empiricist historian who had a strict analysis of sources. However, wished to find the ‘signature of God’, and only used sources from Venetian ambassadors.)
Role=Determine truth from sources (empiricist part). [Bolded bit=Herodotus believed that his role as a historian was that If he heard several versions of a story, he provides them all and invites readers to make up their own minds.]
Role of the historian=Interpretation of sources (Historians could possibly be Carr-fishmonger analogy, ‘history includes interpretation’, ‘study the historian before you study the facts’).

Hope this helps :D

--- End quote ---


Oh God thanks so much for the help, youre honestly the best! (idek if this is how you reply on this website!)

Navigation

[0] Message Index