Views on history

[got tonkaed]

lol id give some of the guys around here more credit than that...there are a bunch of people who are much better at history than i am who could probably tear that apart if they felt like devoting the time id bet. anywho if it gives someone something to write about then its an essay well done i suppose...at least at 3 am.

Multiple choice tests are far less cool anyway.

[Caeli]

Hehee... only to us logical beings Tonka

[chewyman]

Is sexism allowed in this forum, because I have the best reply to this.

Go ahead Chewyboy.. lesse wat ya got.

PS- Tonka: I think yoo lost everyone at "linear progression"... lol i thought it was multiple choice, not essay...

Two reasons why I can't unfortunately:
1. Wicked is a mod; and
2. I've now hyped it up and it can't possibly live up to expectations

[got tonkaed]

Is sexism allowed in this forum, because I have the best reply to this.

Go ahead Chewyboy.. lesse wat ya got.

PS- Tonka: I think yoo lost everyone at "linear progression"... lol i thought it was multiple choice, not essay...

Two reasons why I can't unfortunately:
1. Wicked is a mod; and
2. I've now hyped it up and it can't possibly live up to expectations

bolded for teh story of my life....

[Caeli]

I'll bet #2 applies to you alot, huh?

haha, jk

[crap, tonka got to it first.]

[Jenos Ridan]

I'll bet #2 applies to you alot, huh?

haha, jk

[crap, tonka got to it first.]

Chewieman, give it to her. Cook her good ! As R. Lee Ermy would say "Give'um the whole nine yards"! A full broadside, hold nothing back.

Seriously, feminism? Last I checked, it was a hold-over from the Hippy Age.

[Caeli]

Well, they had to get something right didn't they?

[chewyman]

I'll bet #2 applies to you alot, huh?

haha, jk

[crap, tonka got to it first.]

Chewieman, give it to her. Cook her good ! As R. Lee Ermy would say "Give'um the whole nine yards"! A full broadside, hold nothing back.

Seriously, feminism? Last I checked, it was a hold-over from the Hippy Age.

Then I really would get banned from this site!

Well, they had to get something right didn't they?

They only got one thing right, marijuana.

[Anarchist]

I think this is an excellent post

while I do see the relevance of progresive and evolution. I find that the most important thing we can learn from history is to be prepared to watch it happen again. History repeating.

Was watching a mayan documentary, touched on their irrigation systems so much more advanced then our own. While being simpler in technology, so much more advanced in theory.

To look at the story of Atlantis, makes one laugh at the reports of global warming...

[AlgyTaylor]

As above - well done, excellent topic.



I'd say that history is a pretty static 'it has happened' sort of thing, although it can be very hard to interpret this as we only generally have remains of what was there, and 2nd hand accounts from people who were there - but obviously put their own spin on events.

I'd generally take the view that every event builds upon events in the past .... but other than that, I don't subscribe to the idea that it's all a social struggle or anything

[Guiscard]

As a historian (in training, as it were), this certainly is an interesting topic, Luns.

The problem is that we cannot ascribe any particular historical discipline (marxist, gender history, social history) to an overall historical approach. As people have stated before, 'history' as an academic discipline is simply our various interpretations and discoveries relating to the actual fact which is the past. To define yourself through one 'type' of history is a little ludicrous.

An example could be Colonial India. To confine yourself to the Cambridge school of thinking, which deals with overall narratives of Imperialism, looking at sweeping legal decisions and the vast current of Indian history would give you a good approximation of what happened in the period, and also provide you with the motivations and consequences of the major events. Then again, the Delhi school, or Subaltern historical approach, would give you a detailed history of India from the ground up, as it were, by looking at diaries, letters, local court decisions, descriptions of civil unrest, personal political opinions etc. Confining yourself to this approach would give you a great idea of what it was like to be an Indian or a member of the Anglo-Indian administration, what everyday life was like and what personal political motivations and opinions were present. You do, however, miss out on the overall narrative in which you place the author of your diary or the victim of your court decision.

I'm researching Medieval history at University currently, and from the first year a gradual specialisation takes place where you gradually define what topics you are most intrigued by and which require most new study, and your historiographical method is gradually refined to a set area, be it Gender History, Social History, Military History... But you run into definite problems if you lose sight of the other approaches. In the 1970s, two pretty heavyweight historians - Lawrence Stone and Alan Macfarlane - both published competing and monumental studies of Family History in the early modern period. They were at each others throats, ripping into eachothers historical method, dismissing conclusions as unfounded and giving competing and sometimes inflammatory lectures. In brief, Stone described a framework of change which drastically altered family structure and position in society between 1500-1800, but Macfarlane argued that this change happened much earlier and on a much longer timescale. Both were completely confined to their historiographical method: Stone completely ignored the lower classes because, by his own admission, there wasn't much evidence of anything. Macfarlane, on the other hand, also has his faults. Both were guilty of ignoring other historiographical approaches. Neither dealt with women specifically, but since then Gender historians have applied speicifically feminine evidence to the framework of change. Stone lost sight of the details in favour of sweeping narrative and Macfarlane lost sight of the sweeping narrative in favour of the details.

This is my general post, but I'll deal with individual arguments in further posts.

[/historygeek]

p.s. This thread should more accurately be named Historiography not History. History is the fact (or lack thereof). Historiography is the method and interpretation.

[Iz Man]

"History is written by the victors"
-Winston Churchill

[Guiscard]

History seems to flow, moving through cycles but always with a forward, linear direction. Nations rise, dynasties colapse, markets bloom, dark ages overshadow for brief intervals. And so on. But while it moves in a decidedly cyclical fashion, it does tend to also move in a line. More of a 'cork-screw' really.

The idea that history moves in cycles or corkscrews is a slightly erroneous one. We constantly have new ideas, new standards and new events. Certain eras may seem like we are, at least to an extent, going back to the status quo of the past but in reality we cannot be.

It may seem that Empires rise and fall, but the fall of the Assyrian empire was very different the fall of the Roman empire, and the fall of the British empire was drastically different again. Although we have applied the label of Empire to each of them, they were all so drastically different in nature that each deserves its own term really. The more you study history, the harder it is to ascribe overall trends. Its pretty frustrating really.

[Guiscard]

Biblical as in the Bible is used for say, Archeology. Also as a historical reference. That is why it is on here.

I'm afraid that's a little false... We certainly use the Bible as a source for ancient history in the near east, but unless historians take an approach such as the one Luns described (in which case that's theology, not history) then we take every source, the bible included, on face value. The bible is what we call a Theistic History - one where the certain events and happenings are ascribed to a deity or deities. We take Assyrian accounts ascribing victory to the sun god Ashur in just the same way as Biblical accounts of Yahweh aiding the Israelites in battle. The bible IS certainly right about a lot of archeological facts, but that it because it is a theistic HISTORY of the area. If we take away the actions of God and combine the events recorded with other accounts we can gain a reasonable picture of events.

For example, when the Assyrian monarch attacked Jerusalem at one point, the Bible says that God came down and drive him away (or something along those lines, I can't give you the exact reference)... The Assyrian account however, tells us that the army actually suffered heavily from disease on arrival, and that the leaders besieged in the city eventually capitulated and paid the tribute that the Assyrians required to leave. No historian would doubt that the Old Testament holds a lot of factual evidence, but it is a different question entirely when we begin to factor God into it. That becomes theology.

[Guiscard]

"History is written by the victors"
-Winston Churchill

History was written by the victors to an extent until the advent of mass literacy and especially the printing process. After that, not so. The quote is an erroneous one, and Churchill certainly wasn't its originator.

[btownmeggy]

Of the options you've listed, I'd say I'm most clearly a progressivist (ha! even a developmentalist!), much to the frustration of all the PoMos around me. Luckily, I'm also a historicist, which keeps me from diving too far into technological determinism (I've done a lot of work on the history of science... btw, I'm NOT a technological determinist). Like pretty much any social scientist (or any academic?, and especially a Latin Americanist), I'm hugely influenced by Marxism and it touches everything I do as it was, truly, my intellectual base for quite some time. Poor little Marxism is so hugely out of vogue now though, especially in the US. It's better for one's career to point out when Marxism fails in a theory than when Marxism succeeds in one.

Let's see, are there any more 'isms I can throw in...?

[Iz Man]

"History is written by the victors"
-Winston Churchill

History was written by the victors to an extent until the advent of mass literacy and especially the printing process. After that, not so. The quote is an erroneous one, and Churchill certainly wasn't its originator.

You seem to be more of a historian than me. I consider myself a "history buff" actually. For what its worth.
I can't say I totally disagree with your post, but I'd like to get your take on Churchill's comment if Germany & Japan (easy WWII example) had won the war and we were all now under a Nazi/Imperial Japan rule.
How would the history books have been written?
The Nazi movement a just and worthy cause? The Jews an inferior race that needed to be wiped out?
Can we assume that the world under Nazi/Imperial Japan rule would not have advanced in mass literacy and mass communication?
The education system and media are very powerful influential tools, especially on the young. Given this, wouldn't we all have been brought up "knowing" how righteous Hitler was?

[chewyman]

"History is written by the victors"
-Winston Churchill

"History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it"
- Winston Churchill

Yup, LOVE my Churchill.

[I GOT SERVED]

Well, I suppose I'll throw in my 2 cents on this one.

I prefer to go by the historicism perspective. Reason being, it's what I've been learning all of my life. But recently, I've learned that this kind is somewhat corrupt. It's corrupt because this kind of history is sculpted by the person that writes it down, not by the actual occurrences.

As for cyclisism, I really wish I could say something about this, as to me, this is the most interesting kind of history. I'll have to do some research and get back to y'all on that one.

[ScottS]

History is the repository of all of mankind's wisdom, if only we choose to pursue it. But as our educational establishment has refused to teach anything that can not be condensed to a multiple choice test, entire generations are missing out on real information on what came before them. Mere facts do not bring wisdom, only understanding does.

Human nature is fixed, and as a result, history is cyclic. Virtually everything has been tried before, and the vast majority of the time, context is irrelevant. And yet, mankind continues to make the same mistakes over and over. Why? Because mankind chooses to ignore it's history before striking out on yet another foolish path.

[luns101]

To define yourself through one 'type' of history is a little ludicrous.

you run into definite problems if you lose sight of the other approaches.

p.s. This thread should more accurately be named Historiography not History. History is the fact (or lack thereof). Historiography is the method and interpretation.

I'm glad you're taking the time to share in this post, Guis. Since you're currently studying in this field, I'm sure it will sharpen you as you pass on to us the things you're discovering. I remember those days in the libraries and reference sections!

I whittled down what you said because I think that's what it boils down to for the most part...it is impossible to deny that each school of history has at least something positive to add. We have to be eclectic when we view facts and events, even when there's a school of thought that fundamentally disagrees with our personal biases. To confine ourselves really limits our ability to get the entire perspective of historical events.

I thought about using the "historiography" title at the beginning and then decided not to. My intent was to possibly get some younger people here on CC to take the subject seriously, but also not scare them away with too much terminology. We have a variety of people here with varying degrees of education, and I'm hoping that the younger people here will find what we older folk (don't know how old you are, Guis...lol) say at least somewhat stimulating.

I've always had difficulty with the Muslim historians such as Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Miskawayh. Never sure quite where to place them. Do they deserve their own school of thought...no matter how much I asked that question in my college days, nobody ever gave me a good answer that satisfied me. Do you have any thoughts on him (or the other Muslim historians from the formative or classical period).

[luns101]

while I do see the relevance of progresive and evolution. I find that the most important thing we can learn from history is to be prepared to watch it happen again. History repeating.

I've not been surprised at the lack of support for the idea of progress in history, especially due to the events of the 20th century. So I guess you belong to the cyclical school in general...interesting. So you would agree with this possibly:

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience." - George Bernard Shaw

if you look at things from a broad enough perspective, i suppose everything is going to look much more linear. However thats not generally the viewpoint id like to hold. For me, history is something that really isnt always easy to pinpoint in the relative short term after the fact.

That's the real trick, isn't it? It's nice to have the luxury of looking back and being able to see 'patterns' which seem to be linear. However, it's almost never seen that way at the moment. Our biases almost always skew our ability to see the significance of what direction we're being moved to.

"History never looks like history when you are living through it" - John Gardner

Uhh... skews me but yoo dont have feminism.

Which is why I'm glad you've decided to contribute. The poll options have a limit on the # of things I could add. Many people/schools of thought were left out because of that. I did the best I could in giving 5 general views.

[I GOT SERVED]

I've not been surprised at the lack of support for the idea of progress in history, especially due to the events of the 20th century. So I guess you belong to the cyclical school in general...interesting. So you would agree with this possibly:

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience." - George Bernard Shaw

Interesting point you have there luns. I remember that my old Social Studies teacher told me that "About 80% of the jobs offered in the near future aren't in existence right now" (I don't have any details to back this quote up though, so just take it with a grain of salt ) Unfortunately, the same teacher said that this quote was probably from the late 80's.

But the problem I foresee with progressive history is that we elaborate on how fast we progress way too much. Old-school Disney rides back in the 70's said that by the new millenium, we'll be traveling by hover cars. We still have this same problem of over estimating today, only not as blown out of proportion.

[Backglass]

if you really wanted to exclude the religion/atheist debate, why would you put that in the poll?

Exactly.

[Guiscard]

"History is written by the victors"
-Winston Churchill

History was written by the victors to an extent until the advent of mass literacy and especially the printing process. After that, not so. The quote is an erroneous one, and Churchill certainly wasn't its originator.

You seem to be more of a historian than me. I consider myself a "history buff" actually. For what its worth.
I can't say I totally disagree with your post, but I'd like to get your take on Churchill's comment if Germany & Japan (easy WWII example) had won the war and we were all now under a Nazi/Imperial Japan rule.
How would the history books have been written?
The Nazi movement a just and worthy cause? The Jews an inferior race that needed to be wiped out?
Can we assume that the world under Nazi/Imperial Japan rule would not have advanced in mass literacy and mass communication?
The education system and media are very powerful influential tools, especially on the young. Given this, wouldn't we all have been brought up "knowing" how righteous Hitler was?

I strongly doubt it. The problem with this alternative present is that it discards peoples basic faculty to distinguish between right and wrong. Outside of, perhaps, France we don't see Napoleon as either a conquering Tyrant or an enlightening ruler bringing the virtues of the Republic to the European masses. We have histories that present both viewpoints equally, and those which discard both options. At the time, were you to be British, you would no doubt have seen Napoleon with a Hitler-esque horror - the big military Bogeyman - but not so now, despite us being the 'victors' as it were...

Again, serious history views the American revolution with an equal amount of scepticism, both for the view that you were breaking off because of horrific abuses of rights AND the view that the American colonies were just rebellious upstarts who got lucky. We can see both perspectives, and discard both if needs be. We can see the merits and bad points of ll viewpoints.

I believe that it would may well have been exactly the same for your imaginary scenario. We already see the aggression of the Germans in various different lights, even if we can all agree on the atrocities as awful. Whilst they were the 'losing' side, historians have debated and argued that the German state was perhaps less 'evil' than the uninformed imagine when we consider the reparations, disarmament problems... History takes every viewpoint, or at least it does when you study it properly.

I doubt we'd have been brought up knowing how 'righteous' Hitler was just as we haven't been brought up to think Churchill was the same righteous figure. We can certainly assess Churchill's political skills, and strength as a central figure for the nation, but we can also examine his faults and failures. We were victors in WWI, but we can still pour scorn on the immense loss of life callously signed off by officers in the trenches.