Is History important?

[Nightshade]

Now I want to say first off we need to keep this nonpolitical, I'm not sure how possible that actually is considering this idea came from a very political debate I was having with my flatmates but there you go. :D

So The question is this do you think People really really have to know their History, who they are who they come from the details of their country and cultures history who as a collective group they were sinned against and sinned themselves ( the word sin has less of the connotations if I used any of the other possible words that tend to focus on one or the other group; oppression, subjugation, slavery, persecution... every culture and society across history has been a victim at one point or other and most if not all have also played roles in the sinning bracket of the equation.

So is history endlessly repeating the same story over and over again? Can facing all the dirty nasty truth about who we are help us change to be better in the future as a global society? Can we ever have equality? Do we even really want true equality? Do we need someone to blame?



Are we taught 'cherry picked History' , History is written by the Victors, I'm fairly certain Churchill said. Does it then remain that history is a story someone made it up and it is biased, even facts figures statistics cant tell you the real history because to 2 people standing experiencing the same external stimuli 2 different things happen, history is always unique and individual and thus shouldn't count? Or should we be taught all of us all the bad things that we have done and do and have had done to us as a kind of warning. The world's history is the world's judgment someone called Schiller said that in 1789, cant think why the name rings a bell but it does.

Or do we obsess too much about the past, think too much about how we were hard done by 30, 50, 100, 200, 1000 years ago? Is it about time we moved on? Voltaire said that history is nothing but a tableau of crimes and misfortunes surely focusing on so much negativity is bad , we cant go forward if we are stuck in the past?

So Like I said my flatmates and I have been discussing/arguing about this for the last 3 days more or less solidly, although we have skirted the topic before and we will probably keep debating for another good week or 2. Any minute someone will knock on a door and say right come here look what I have found and this illustrates my argument X Y Z but we do tend to focus on the politics placing the argument in light of current issues and events in ways that isn't suited for the litnet , but also kind of takes away from the plain idea of in theory is history a good or bad thing? Do we pay enough attention to it etc

I don't have an answer to me all the arguments have merit and in the last day I can see I have begun to move away from my original stance, but it got me wondering what other people from a lot more diverse set of backgrounds think :D

[Chilly]

So The question is this do you think People really really have to know their History, who they are who they come from the details of their country and cultures history who as a collective group they were sinned against and sinned themselves ( the word sin has less of the connotations if I used any of the other possible words that tend to focus on one or the other group; oppression, subjugation, slavery, persecution... every culture and society across history has been a victim at one point or other and most if not all have also played roles in the sinning bracket of the equation.

So is history endlessly repeating the same story over and over again? Can facing all the dirty nasty truth about who we are help us change to be better in the future as a global society? Can we ever have equality? Do we even really want true equality? Do we need someone to blame?



Are we taught 'cherry picked History' , History is written by the Victors, I'm fairly certain Churchill said. Does it then remain that history is a story someone made it up and it is biased, even facts figures statistics cant tell you the real history because to 2 people standing experiencing the same external stimuli 2 different things happen, history is always unique and individual and thus shouldn't count? Or should we be taught all of us all the bad things that we have done and do and have had done to us as a kind of warning. The world's history is the world's judgment someone called Schiller said that in 1789, cant think why the name rings a bell but it does.

Or do we obsess too much about the past, think too much about how we were hard done by 30, 50, 100, 200, 1000 years ago? Is it about time we moved on? Voltaire said that history is nothing but a tableau of crimes and misfortunes surely focusing on so much negativity is bad , we cant go forward if we are stuck in the past?

So Like I said my flatmates and I have been discussing/arguing about this for the last 3 days more or less solidly, although we have skirted the topic before and we will probably keep debating for another good week or 2. Any minute someone will knock on a door and say right come here look what I have found and this illustrates my argument X Y Z but we do tend to focus on the politics placing the argument in light of current issues and events in ways that isn't suited for the litnet , but also kind of takes away from the plain idea of in theory is history a good or bad thing? Do we pay enough attention to it etc

I think that people should definitely know their history, but that's my biased opinion. I love history, to me it is an endless source of fascinating stories that teach us about everything. Every situation that a human can go through has happened a million times,. If we were able to watch and study these events, we would know what to do and wouldn't create the same mistakes, which would help the future.

However, we can never actually go back in time and watch things ourselves, so we wouldn't be able to take out much while studying. Like you said, everything we know about the past is from biased points of views and we can never know what truly happened. So we wouldn't be able to actually use much of what we learned, because we don't know if its true.

Nonetheless, everything has a kernel of truth and we could still learn and improve our lives. Its not like the biases affect the story too much.

So i think that generally, learning history is quite useful because it helps us not make mistakes. Plus, if you don't know you're basic history we could call you ignorant.

[Jozanny]

Sometimes people do not want the history. An example would be the far flung impact and very long reach of German Nazism, which at its core was an extreme radical kind of ideal futurism. Genocide is not easy to digest, even for would be scholars like myself, but I do not look away. The United States is not entirely innocent on this score either, as there was an extermination campaign, sanctioned at times by government and military, against the indigenous nations that were gradually herded into reservations. There is also a nasty little theory about the king of Britain who abdicated for his American divorcee, but I suppose I pushed the envelope enough for one post--my main point being, everyone knows histories. The truth is more easily buried.

[JBI]

Yes - as soon as you start doubting history, you start doubting the value of life. Without history, the individual, or even society does not matter. People's impact on the world is what, I would argue, keeps people really sane. If there is no history, there really is no connection of time - time would be completely lost, and therefore any ideas of creativity, or of being apart of anything deteriorate. Everything would become relative, to the point where one would live in a virtual aporia.

Of course, though one must question what is meant by history. IF by history you mean history textbooks - that makes no difference - the written form of history doesn't really matter much. But without the significance of events, without the concept of what has led to identity, without essentially a coherent sense of culture, nothing would be permissible. So, something like Beowulf for instance, in my meaning, would imply a sort of history, whereas the tradition from Herodotus down, from the entry of text into the world really, doesn't matter much. The oral history though, the time rather than space based history, that is essential.

[dramasnot6]

I agree with a lot of what JBI has commented.
I just read a wonderful theorist named Walter Benjamin (his piece "On the Concept of History" is especially relevant here) who argues that history's value lies in our redemption of the people of the past. Looking to the illusion of the future should not be the source of our inspiration to do anything and everything. And yes, the written form of history isn't even history at all (although I guess neither is our socially construction version of it as a part of our identities).
The historical event has many functions outside of being written in a textbook. It provides us with a sense of struggle and change that ultimately leads us to seek progress (although,arguably, the term progress here is problematic because, as the expression goes "history does repeat itself" and absolute progress is impossible to achieve).

[NikolaiI]

History is important but not all-important. And it's impossible to know for sure what happened, so for that reason if no other, it isn't all-important. For instance, it's inevitable that there is some distortion, due to forgetfulness, missing an important detail, or any other of a million reasons. History is important in education, but education covers some other topics as well. You know, I think actually pre-history can be more important in some ways. I mean, just to get an idea about what happened before we even wrote anything down.

I guess it's just a decision as to what you think is important. History is part of education but knowing it doesn't make us do better things necessarily. I think people will decide what they will do, whether to do good things or rotten things, generally out of their desire, their development of character, and their knowledge or ignorance. By knowledge, I generally mean self-knowledge.

[Nightshade]

Yes - as soon as you start doubting history, you start doubting the value of life. Without history, the individual, or even society does not matter. People's impact on the world is what, I would argue, keeps people really sane. If there is no history, there really is no connection of time - time would be completely lost, and therefore any ideas of creativity, or of being apart of anything deteriorate. Everything would become relative, to the point where one would live in a virtual aporia.

Of course, though one must question what is meant by history. IF by history you mean history textbooks - that makes no difference - the written form of history doesn't really matter much. But without the significance of events, without the concept of what has led to identity, without essentially a coherent sense of culture, nothing would be permissible. So, something like Beowulf for instance, in my meaning, would imply a sort of history, whereas the tradition from Herodotus down, from the entry of text into the world really, doesn't matter much. The oral history though, the time rather than space based history, that is essential.
So just to be sure I have this straight, you are saying that history is crucial to society, humanity even, because without the illusion or possibility of making an impact leaving a mark, life wold just fall to pieces? That is intresting.

I agree with a lot of what JBI has commented.
I just read a wonderful theorist named Walter Benjamin (his piece "On the Concept of History" is especially relevant here) who argues that history's value lies in our redemption of the people of the past. Looking to the illusion of the future should not be the source of our inspiration to do anything and everything. And yes, the written form of history isn't even history at all (although I guess neither is our socially construction version of it as a part of our identities).
The historical event has many functions outside of being written in a textbook. It provides us with a sense of struggle and change that ultimately leads us to seek progress (although,arguably, the term progress here is problematic because, as the expression goes "history does repeat itself" and absolute progress is impossible to achieve).
OK putting that on the reading list.

I think that people should definitely know their history, but that's my biased opinion. I love history, to me it is an endless source of fascinating stories that teach us about everything. Every situation that a human can go through has happened a million times,. If we were able to watch and study these events, we would know what to do and wouldn't create the same mistakes, which would help the future.

However, we can never actually go back in time and watch things ourselves, so we wouldn't be able to take out much while studying. Like you said, everything we know about the past is from biased points of views and we can never know what truly happened. So we wouldn't be able to actually use much of what we learned, because we don't know if its true.

Nonetheless, everything has a kernel of truth and we could still learn and improve our lives. Its not like the biases affect the story too much.

So i think that generally, learning history is quite useful because it helps us not make mistakes. Plus, if you don't know you're basic history we could call you ignorant.


History is important but not all-important. And it's impossible to know for sure what happened, so for that reason if no other, it isn't all-important. For instance, it's inevitable that there is some distortion, due to forgetfulness, missing an important detail, or any other of a million reasons. History is important in education, but education covers some other topics as well. You know, I think actually pre-history can be more important in some ways. I mean, just to get an idea about what happened before we even wrote anything down.

I guess it's just a decision as to what you think is important. History is part of education but knowing it doesn't make us do better things necessarily. I think people will decide what they will do, whether to do good things or rotten things, generally out of their desire, their development of character, and their knowledge or ignorance. By knowledge, I generally mean self-knowledge.
Oh I see so like having a shared history gives us a shared starting point even if it is all a pack of lives it puts on a bit of a level with each other then we go from there sort of like a tool or resource weve gotto pul on?



Sometimes people do not want the history. An example would be the far flung impact and very long reach of German Nazism, which at its core was an extreme radical kind of ideal futurism. Genocide is not easy to digest, even for would be scholars like myself, but I do not look away. The United States is not entirely innocent on this score either, as there was an extermination campaign, sanctioned at times by government and military, against the indigenous nations that were gradually herded into reservations. There is also a nasty little theory about the king of Britain who abdicated for his American divorcee, but I suppose I pushed the envelope enough for one post--my main point being, everyone knows histories. The truth is more easily buried.
Ok Jozanny stepping away from the specific poltics in that post ( in so far as it is possible, of course. Like I was trying to explain to aguy who was looking for a book on Saterday you cant really get a complete socioand economic history that spans over 1,500 years without politics they are all too intertwined) Having said that So Politics shape histry and history shapes our politics. whihc you could link with the learning and redemtion from history idea. But I do want to say that Geoncide and ethnic cleansing are hardly new thinngs, and hthis is what my flat mate meant by cherry picked history we seem to only see the big new shiny events and forget the these things hjave been happening for thousands of years.

Ok I have more to add but I wil get back to that later in the day when Ive got some more studying done
:D

[Jozanny]

Well, okay, but what do you mean by history? The academic discipline which is a combination of journalism and anthropology? or JBI's cultural historic mythologies? There is a difference, and the tensions of the truths between them is problematic. Beowulf is not history, in my definition, but a founding mythology, much like Genesis, and others I know of but cannot cite. The study of the city of Lodz, in its entire historical aspect, is, or even the story behind the WW2 king who passed the crown to his brother, unwittingly gifting the world with Elizabeth II's dour duty before all else. How do we define history, even in the broad terms you're looking at?

[kasie]

I think many people who study History will tell you that the first thing you learn from History is that no one learns from History - people go on making the same mistakes over and over again.

Nevertheless, I think everyone needs at least a passing aquaintance with the past of their country, better still how their country's past fits in with the past of other countries - without this knowledge, it would be very difficult to think with anything approaching a sense of perspective, surely the mark of an educated mind. The moves from knowing a few key highlights (Alfred burning the cakes, Charles hiding in an oak tree, for example) to a more extended version (Alfred's campaign against the Danes, the course of the English Civil War) to a considered overview (the implications of territorial expansion in Dark Ages Europe, the place of armed struggle in the extension of suffrage in seventeenth century England) to an historical philosphy (the rights of nationhood, the desirability of democracy) are considerable steps however and possibly not for every student - but that is true of any subject, Literature, Chemistry, music, whatever. (I apologise in advance for quoting examples from British History - it's the area with which I am most conversant - for some reason.....)

As for History being written, I believe historians would argue that History proper is only the written form - pre-history is by extrapolation, oral history is regarded as unreliable. The value placed on oral history is comparatively recent and regarded as useful, as far as the historian is concerned, only if it can be backed up by documentary evidence. Historians love documents: documents that appear to contradict each other are grist to their mill! No historian who wishes to be taken seriously would consider making any statement without documentary evidence to validate his interpretation.

'Interpretation' is a key word. As previous posters have rightly pointed out, it isn't possible to know exactly what happened in the past: think of ten people witnessing a car crash - you would get ten different accounts and all you could be certain of was that an accident had taken place. An historian takes the existing records and offers an interpretation of events - the honest academic makes it clear this is his interpretation; the less than ingenuous (or more arrogant) writer presents his version as fact. Maybe it takes a little experience to distinguish between the thoughtful exposition and the covert manipulation of the reader, as well as the conscious effort to remember that, learned or otherwise as a paper may seem, it is of necessity a partial account, innocent or otherwise - caveat lector.

And Jozanny, whatever has Edward VIII (abdicated 1936, btw, just before the outbreak of WWII) done to upset you?? :D

[Jozanny]

And Jozanny, whatever has Edward VIII (abdicated 1936, btw, just before the outbreak of WWII) done to upset you?? :D

I suppose I harbor a degree of indignation over my own gullibility:p! I believed the Mrs. Simpson love story for the longest time, and then I started watching Investigative Reports. I will not get into the specifics of the evidence, but I suppose your Winston took the truth with him to his grave, even if he was half-American.:D

Very wise and insightful post kasie. Bravo!

[JBI]

I think many people who study History will tell you that the first thing you learn from History is that no one learns from History - people go on making the same mistakes over and over again.

Nevertheless, I think everyone needs at least a passing aquaintance with the past of their country, better still how their country's past fits in with the past of other countries - without this knowledge, it would be very difficult to think with anything approaching a sense of perspective, surely the mark of an educated mind. The moves from knowing a few key highlights (Alfred burning the cakes, Charles hiding in an oak tree, for example) to a more extended version (Alfred's campaign against the Danes, the course of the English Civil War) to a considered overview (the implications of territorial expansion in Dark Ages Europe, the place of armed struggle in the extension of suffrage in seventeenth century England) to an historical philosphy (the rights of nationhood, the desirability of democracy) are considerable steps however and possibly not for every student - but that is true of any subject, Literature, Chemistry, music, whatever. (I apologise in advance for quoting examples from British History - it's the area with which I am most conversant - for some reason.....)

As for History being written, I believe historians would argue that History proper is only the written form - pre-history is by extrapolation, oral history is regarded as unreliable. The value placed on oral history is comparatively recent and regarded as useful, as far as the historian is concerned, only if it can be backed up by documentary evidence. Historians love documents: documents that appear to contradict each other are grist to their mill! No historian who wishes to be taken seriously would consider making any statement without documentary evidence to validate his interpretation.

'Interpretation' is a key word. As previous posters have rightly pointed out, it isn't possible to know exactly what happened in the past: think of ten people witnessing a car crash - you would get ten different accounts and all you could be certain of was that an accident had taken place. An historian takes the existing records and offers an interpretation of events - the honest academic makes it clear this is his interpretation; the less than ingenuous (or more arrogant) writer presents his version as fact. Maybe it takes a little experience to distinguish between the thoughtful exposition and the covert manipulation of the reader, as well as the conscious effort to remember that, learned or otherwise as a paper may seem, it is of necessity a partial account, innocent or otherwise - caveat lector.

And Jozanny, whatever has Edward VIII (abdicated 1936, btw, just before the outbreak of WWII) done to upset you?? :D

As for historians, New Historicism dictates that old forms of historiography are just as unreliable as oral forms. The oral forms, it can be argued, are somehow more reliable as they function closer to the imagination of the people. Textual history is as assembled as oral history - the amount of crafty assumption and misrepresentation is staggering. Just read the contemporary documents about Japanese Internment during WW2 for example - the language, which was used up until the 70s, was clearly manufactured and containing little truth. The testimony after the event though, when the writing of history failed, did perhaps contain a more accurate picture, even if it wasn't textually verifiable.

I recommend, for anyone interested in the difference between oral and written forms of communication, The Bias of Communication by Harold Innis - it's a challenging book, but one that shows how textual criticism - which includes movies, and recorded sound - ultimately is flimsier in establishing a sense of identity or worth amongst people. I'm with Innis, honestly, which is hard to admit, since I'm a studier of texts, that the Oral Tradition, and Oral Based societies are far better than Written based ones.

[kasie]

As for historians, New Historicism dictates that old forms of historiography are just as unreliable as oral forms. The oral forms, it can be argued, are somehow more reliable as they function closer to the imagination of the people. Textual history is as assembled as oral history - the amount of crafty assumption and misrepresentation is staggering. Just read the contemporary documents about Japanese Internment during WW2 for example - the language, which was used up until the 70s, was clearly manufactured and containing little truth. The testimony after the event though, when the writing of history failed, did perhaps contain a more accurate picture, even if it wasn't textually verifiable........

I wonder why I feel somewhat uncomfortable with this view of History? Could it be that old certainties are being replaced with new certainties? Or is it the impression that it could be equally manipulative and selective in less than scrupulous or objective hands, that the reader still needs to treat these accounts with just as much caution as textual accounts? Comparisons will still be a requirement for a rounded picture of an event.

I can't help the conclusion that oral accounts are still going to be as partial and biased, whatever New Historians believe, as the old textual sources. I think they will still need to be treated with a degree of scepticism as to the intention of the deposition. Jozanny mentioned the Abdication of 1936 which is a case in point - it so occupied the attention of the British people in the latter part of the year that other more significant events slid past them comparatively unremarked. It was regarded as the Great Love Story, as she says and that was how the story was remembered and how it could have been remembered if Oral history was all that remained of the event. But the documentary evidence remains, not only in the archived papers of the principal players but in newspaper reports of the time - how the King had put himself into an untenable position by insisting on a marriage to a divorcee, impossible for him as Head of the Church of England, a Church which did not at the time recognise re-marriage of divorced persons in church (rather than marriage to an American, Jozanny! :) ) - but the majority of people overlooked this aspect and asked about it after the event, remembered only the Romance. It is only in recent years when papers have been available for study that the point of view has been realigned, not 'corrected' but given a more rounded perspective. This is perhaps why I feel inclined to cling to the Old Historicism, the habit of evaluating evidence that does not rely entirely on fallible memory.

[JBI]

I wonder why I feel somewhat uncomfortable with this view of History? Could it be that old certainties are being replaced with new certainties? Or is it the impression that it could be equally manipulative and selective in less than scrupulous or objective hands, that the reader still needs to treat these accounts with just as much caution as textual accounts? Comparisons will still be a requirement for a rounded picture of an event.

I can't help the conclusion that oral accounts are still going to be as partial and biased, whatever New Historians believe, as the old textual sources. I think they will still need to be treated with a degree of scepticism as to the intention of the deposition. Jozanny mentioned the Abdication of 1936 which is a case in point - it so occupied the attention of the British people in the latter part of the year that other more significant events slid past them comparatively unremarked. It was regarded as the Great Love Story, as she says and that was how the story was remembered and how it could have been remembered if Oral history was all that remained of the event. But the documentary evidence remains, not only in the archived papers of the principal players but in newspaper reports of the time - how the King had put himself into an untenable position by insisting on a marriage to a divorcee, impossible for him as Head of the Church of England, a Church which did not at the time recognise re-marriage of divorced persons in church (rather than marriage to an American, Jozanny! :) ) - but the majority of people overlooked this aspect and asked about it after the event, remembered only the Romance. It is only in recent years when papers have been available for study that the point of view has been realigned, not 'corrected' but given a more rounded perspective. This is perhaps why I feel inclined to cling to the Old Historicism, the habit of evaluating evidence that does not rely entirely on fallible memory.

You cannot construct an accurate history, because histories are constructed on inaccurate evidence. The further back you go, the more inaccurate. What you thought happened almost certainly didn't happen like that, and that only creates a piece of an image, and completely ignores now forgotten viewpoints.

The oral accounts, as you say, aren't perhaps exact accounts of events, but they are just as close as the written ones, in fact, they are closer, since they get the human aspect of it, rather than just the numbers that can be generated. The Oral accounts are more real than the constructed written ones, simply because they are personal, and are transmitted and understood at a personal level.

[kasie]

I have been thinking that perhaps I did not make it clear that I was thinking of written sources in terms of what I believe historians call Prime Sources - State Papers, letters, Orders of the Day, that sort of thing, with perhaps verbatim records of parliamentary debates as presented in publications like Hansard, or minutes of meetings. I cannot imagine any historian of the future ignoring this kind of material. I would agree that Secondary sources, an account of events written by a third party, must have a modicum of bias or selection, however objective the writer strives to be.

Oral history would give an invaluable perspective on how it felt to be present at events, and is undoubtedly useful for a hitherto somewhat neglected area of historical research, the impact of events on the bystanders or lesser players. Perhaps this is what you mean when you say they are 'more real' but I still perceive this information as passing through another kind of partial and selective filter that limits its use for historians of the future. With modern means of recording accounts however, this will be a rich area of research for future historians, one with wider scope than more limited (in terms of volume) past sources of this nature.

[librarius_qui]

Now I want to say first off we need to keep this nonpolitical, I'm not sure how possible that actually is considering this idea came from a very political debate I was having with my flatmates but there you go. :D



History is one thing, Politics is another. History is about memory. Politics is about something else.





So The question is this do you think People really really have to know their History, who they are who they come from the details of their country and cultures history who as a collective group they were sinned against and sinned themselves ( the word sin has less of the connotations if I used any of the other possible words that tend to focus on one or the other group; oppression, subjugation, slavery, persecution... every culture and society across history has been a victim at one point or other and most if not all have also played roles in the sinning bracket of the equation.

So is history endlessly repeating the same story over and over again? Can facing all the dirty nasty truth about who we are help us change to be better in the future as a global society? Can we ever have equality? Do we even really want true equality? Do we need someone to blame?



It's important to people (human beings) to know History of: 1 mankind; 2. their own.

Reason: identity. (Among other things.) Perhaps country isn't so important as family origin, but it'll vary from person to person. In the United States, for instance, people seem to have certain pride of their origins. In Brasil, black people don't easily have an artistic production as they should, because there's too little "black power" in Brasil. Same with indians: in the States, there seems to be more pride in identities.

I see things like this.

I wouldn't be myself if I knew nothing of my ancestors. I know the names of my father (easy ..) my grandfather (easy too), my great-grandfather, his father, and the father of this last one, who was born in Italy. I know the city he's from. Now, well, I'm not Italian, but I had to find some things out. I don't intend to go to Italy to live there, but I had to know this. -- People are different from each other. *I* HAD to know this. There may be someone who won't live by knowing theirs! ...





Are we taught 'cherry picked History' , History is written by the Victors, I'm fairly certain Churchill said. Does it then remain that history is a story someone made it up and it is biased, even facts figures statistics cant tell you the real history because to 2 people standing experiencing the same external stimuli 2 different things happen, history is always unique and individual and thus shouldn't count? Or should we be taught all of us all the bad things that we have done and do and have had done to us as a kind of warning. The world's history is the world's judgment someone called Schiller said that in 1789, cant think why the name rings a bell but it does.

Or do we obsess too much about the past, think too much about how we were hard done by 30, 50, 100, 200, 1000 years ago? Is it about time we moved on? Voltaire said that history is nothing but a tableau of crimes and misfortunes surely focusing on so much negativity is bad , we cant go forward if we are stuck in the past?



History isn't only written. History is about documents too. There's law, there's art, there's public papers, marriage stuff, birth registration, burial stones ... So, there's some literature about History, all right (Tristam) but there's some documents as well (a stone written "HICIACETDRVSTANS...", "Here lies Drustans", which can still be found in England. So, not all History is literature ...

History isn't only bad things. There are the good parts. For instance ... Guttenberg made a machine to allow bibles to be more popular. Galileo found four moons around Jupiter. Men stepped on the moon.





So Like I said my flatmates and I have been discussing/arguing about this for the last 3 days more or less solidly, although we have skirted the topic before and we will probably keep debating for another good week or 2. Any minute someone will knock on a door and say right come here look what I have found and this illustrates my argument X Y Z but we do tend to focus on the politics placing the argument in light of current issues and events in ways that isn't suited for the litnet , but also kind of takes away from the plain idea of in theory is history a good or bad thing? Do we pay enough attention to it etc

I don't have an answer to me all the arguments have merit and in the last day I can see I have begun to move away from my original stance, but it got me wondering what other people from a lot more diverse set of backgrounds think :D

If you only see bad things, no, you don't pay enough attention to it.



lq~

[JBI]

Do you really think these so called primary documents are any less constructed than the history they form? Names go unrecorded, things change, things are left out - the whole process of selecting what is history-worthy is in itself a construction. What we know about the past is more of a guess than anything else. History, like any Grand Narrative is flawed in terms of fact. But when it becomes something that gets personal, what I earlier called oral history - meaning the things that are spoken about within society, such as food - which is passed down generation to generation, folk-music, which is passed down, tradition, even literature in its beginning - that is something different. The lineage of the Grandsons of Queen Elizabeth II make no difference - I doubt they can even name all 8 great-grandparents.

[librarius_qui]

The lineage of the Grandsons of Queen Elizabeth II make no difference - I doubt they can even name all 8 great-grandparents.

the question is: can YOU?

or: is it important TO YOU?

[JBI]

It isn't important to me, and I wouldn't want it to be. I don't consider her my Queen, and I doubt most Canadians even know she is the head of State, or care less about her.

[librarius_qui]

It isn't important to me, and I wouldn't want it to be. I don't consider her my Queen, and I doubt most Canadians even know she is the head of State, or care less about her.

Not hers. YOURS.

[JBI]

Not hers. YOURS.

I've got four on one side I can name, but the other side is a puzzle, as my grandparents didn't talk at all about their past lives after the Holocaust. The point though, is that this is perhaps the most documented genealogy in the world. What is it worth though? What is this sort of historical discourse really perpetuating? A claim to a thrown because of what? Money, a % of blood related to certain lines?

History in that sense has no real purpose. The family saga, as it really goes, seems to have taken a written historical form now anyway, from an oral one in general. The concept of how one came to be is not as important now as how much space a concept can cover. Text handles space, Oral handles time, and written history may be able to be read by anyone, but it holds very little value over time - if I read Queen Elizabeth's Genealogy, I probably won't have any sense of meaning derived from it.

But take something like this: (the song, not the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuKuUbCNk1A

That's a song about explorers, hundreds of years dead. Yet the history is alive, because it deals with the experience of everyone, and the song draws a connection between the exploration of the historical figures to that of the common man in Canada, creating a sense of meaning in the search for the so called "Northwest Passage". In that sense, the history within the song, though not rooted in fact, has some sort of connection - it isn't purely a one directional discourse, the oral aspects (albeit, this is a recording, so it isn't the authentic thing, but merely a simulacra, but it will have to do) are able to communicate a message that has a lasting affect on the consciousness of the listeners who can connect to it - it provides a real sense of identity. This connection, arguably, led Canadians, when polled which song they would choose to replace the national anthem if they had to, to choose this one - not a pop song, which definitely has higher sales.


You don't even need to go into that though, there are plenty of historical examples - just look at the effect Romance of the Three Kingdoms has had on the artistic and cultural development in China, from Opera to Cinema to TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7g7O41icGg

[kasie]

Do you really think these so called primary documents are any less constructed than the history they form? .....

And do you really think that Folk Memory - or Oral History - is not constructed?

Yes, in any given record, errors are made, names are omitted, sometimes delibrately, sometimes by accident, but on the whole I'd be more inclined to believe a Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths than a family mythology of what happened to Great Uncle Jack, depending on who was telling the story (for example).

A casual dismissal of all forms of written records impugns the integrity of all record keepers, the vast majority of whom are working to strict codes of practice, sometimes upheld with legal sanctions. And yes, written records are sometimes relevant, whether it is to provide the minutes of the last meeting, prove the right to a throne or your share of Great Uncle Jack's vast fortune. :)

[JBI]

And do you really think that Folk Memory - or Oral History - is not constructed?

Yes, in any given record, errors are made, names are omitted, sometimes delibrately, sometimes by accident, but on the whole I'd be more inclined to believe a Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths than a family mythology of what happened to Great Uncle Jack, depending on who was telling the story (for example).

A casual dismissal of all forms of written records impugns the integrity of all record keepers, the vast majority of whom are working to strict codes of practice, sometimes upheld with legal sanctions. And yes, written records are sometimes relevant, whether it is to provide the minutes of the last meeting, prove the right to a throne or your share of Great Uncle Jack's vast fortune. :)
I don't doubt they are, but they are enforced by more meaning than the text.

For instance, a historian would go to a witness, and record their thoughts on an issue. Than another historian would go, and use that evidence in a wider text, and so on. The primary story, by the end of it, has no real significant meaning - it has been first transformed by the recording from oral - from living - to dead, and then has been redefined over again within a context.

No doubt, historiography has very little claim to official truth - no scholar today could support it - but the dominance of the text has created a disconnection from its purpose - a sense of identity and purpose - text dominated history suggests that it tells the facts, but it guesses and assumes them, and in the process, undercuts the real history - the oral history - by claiming the truth of the written narrative over the oral one. It disconnects reality, and limits the possibility of truth to a static form.

The fact that history captures the events perfectly is not really the function of history. The function of history is to assemble a narrative based on the events. And like all narratives, history is no less biased on constructed. I merely suggest that oral narratives work better, since they aren't static, and can change to suit the current time.

You can easily look into history spanning back even a few years and see how the construction occurs - and since it is textual construction, one can assume it is ideologically motivated. As Baudrillard put it, "The [first]Gulf War did not happen." What actually occurred is a mystery, and has been shaped by limiting perspectives, and infusing ideologies. The actual event is obscure, as it is dialogical and encompasses too much, yet the primary reporters, and those who organize them, have fused a history of it. The fact that it was the CNN covering everything, and constructing the coverage most certainly effected the way history was constructed from the observer's perspective. The spacial dominance of CNN then usurps the oral dominance of the direct experience and testimony, and somehow becomes the only authoritative take on the events, which creates problems. What really happened has become irrelevant, and what it all means has been constructed "Authoritatively".


But what is the point of this sort of history - one would argue, that history works to give people a sense of pride an identity - something which automatically comes down to something We have and they do not, or something We have done and they have not. Spacial history though, constructs this over space, meaning it creates a history that suggests certain areas, countries if you will have done this, and verifies their accounts. But an oral history does something very different - it constructs it over time - meaning it does not look at the spacial issues, but at the generational issues, the events that led up to the present as a sort of narrative of development.

So, for instance, an American, or a Canadian for that matter, can say, "We fought in the Gulf War and won in the early 90s." Whereas an oral history would say, "My family was destroyed and torn apart by the conflict, and I was forced to move, and that is how, going into exile, I arrived here." The factual basis is ultimately irrelevant.

[kasie]

And yet, and yet....

An event as amorphous as a war has many 'histories', not least the impact on individuals - to the individuals concerned, what happened to them is what The War was about. When I was a child I listened to endless stories about What Happened in The War (the Second World War): these were oral histories, ie the 'What Happened to Me/Us in The War', and they were fascinating but much as they impinged directly on what was happening to my family and friends in those immediate post-war years, they were only fragments of the picture. The answers to questions such as 'But why were you fire-watching? Why did you join the Home Guard? Why was your friend Ivor in the desert? Why was George in Normandy?' were questions that received somewhat vague answers, not because my parents didn't know the answers but because the whole episode was too big to be answered in a simple way. It was not until I came to read accounts constructed by people who took the trouble to collate the many fragments, from first-hand accounts, reports from the Front, letters etc, etc etc, that a larger picture began to emerge. And no one book can do it justice - it takes the reading of many books to see the many points of view from which an event as big as a war can be judged.

I don't pretend to be an expert but I do find the answer to the question 'How did we get where we are today?' an endlessly fascinating one, whether the 'we' is my family, the country in which I happen to be living at the moment, Europe, the West, the World. I am aware of the shortcomings of textual history, I am aware of the value of oral history - I think they work together, not against each other, so to the OP, I would say, yes, all kinds of History are important and we should know as much as possible about how we came to be where we are.

[Jozanny]

IThe factual basis is ultimately irrelevant.

I disagree. But let me back track a little. Legends are important JBI. No one denies that from the cradle of civilization, they serve an important function, but, to go back to one of my original examples, England did not face a crisis in succession simply because E8 had the hots for a divorced American, and I am sure everything kasie cited about the Church of England carried weight, as there is always some germ of logic to official versions. The real crisis, at least as insinuated, was that the Duke liked Hitler, and as everyone in power at the time knew that conflict was imminent, Edward could not stay on as the sovereign of a collapsing empire if he sympathized with the Germans. This was a footnote in my continuing education.

You cannot simply say lies and truth are mere variables, because then you would be forced to say that things like factual evidence that China executes innocents in crime sprees because they do not have a professional judiciary comes down to mere Western spin. It is actually a historical narrative which shines on a sad injustice.

Facts can and do get our narratives in the right places.

And if I am reading a professional historian to continue to learn, this is not my strategy for binding myself within a community. Maybe debating an urban legend with my neighbor is, but these are not one and the same.

[JBI]

I disagree. But let me back track a little. Legends are important JBI. No one denies that from the cradle of civilization, they serve an important function, but, to go back to one of my original examples, England did not face a crisis in succession simply because E8 had the hots for a divorced American, and I am sure everything kasie cited about the Church of England carried weight, as there is always some germ of logic to official versions. The real crisis, at least as insinuated, was that the Duke liked Hitler, and as everyone in power at the time knew that conflict was imminent, Edward could not stay on as the sovereign of a collapsing empire if he sympathized with the Germans. This was a footnote in my continuing education.

You cannot simply say lies and truth are mere variables, because then you would be forced to say that things like factual evidence that China executes innocents in crime sprees because they do not have a professional judiciary comes down to mere Western spin. It is actually a historical narrative which shines on a sad injustice.

Facts can and do get our narratives in the right places.

And if I am reading a professional historian to continue to learn, this is not my strategy for binding myself within a community. Maybe debating an urban legend with my neighbor is, but these are not one and the same.

I disagree - I think that is a Western spin - perhaps innocents are executed by China (I was told also, they enjoy eating baby fetuses), but the point is, everything else you say about that needs to be taken into account. That is one event, history is the narrative between events. You call it a sad injustice, others may call it liberation, still others may call it necessary, but the point is, you force your judgment, your narrative onto the events, which quite simply, aren't first hand accounts themselves, and subject to a process of judgments. The fact that some things go recorded and others don't in itself is a gigantic bias. For instance, you jump quickly onto China killing civilians, one could question why you didn't jump on, for instance, Americans killing civilians, or Russians killing civilians, or even Canadians killing civilians? You chose on example - and that is what history is - it's a selective process which pulls together scraps from real events, or hearsay. Oral history though, does this for a different reason than written history, and that is what I'm getting at.

Perhaps Edward VIII was a Hitler supporter, but the fact that that fact makes history, or even that Edward VIII makes history is in itself biased. But beyond that, one could turn to other facts. For instance, Robertson Davies, in his historical novel Fifth Business casts Edward as a completely different character - as a mythologized modern man, whose abdication causes Boy Staunton to have an identity crisis, as his idol would not be the leading figure bringing reform to the modern world. Which one is more historically accurate? I'm with Robertson - though working in fiction, he at least tries to portray the public Edward - the private Edward in this case is not as relevant.

Which one is the real Edward though, and what does history tell us? Does it tell us why he abdicated - the rational behind the exchange of power, or the effect and perception of everyone on the events? Which is more relevant? Which is worth more attention? I think the idolized Edward is more historically significant, than an assembled rational behind the series of events. But the historical Edward, the one rooted in documents and not in the minds and discussions of the people is what becomes history. Davies' Edward is regarded as an artistic creation, whereas Windsor's Edward is regarded as the real thing.

We could take it further. We could essentially say that events, people, and dates in general are all just metonyms for the actual history that is going on - we say, for instance, Hitler's Germany, but doesn't that just put everything behind Hitler, and not take into account Germany itself - could that be, for instance, a mechanism to reformat history into something attributable to one group of people, rather than a whole generation, or perhaps generations? Does the concept of Hitler's Germany really mean anything? Perhaps it would be better as Germany's Hitler. Does history take that really into account though, or does it shape itself around the events, which dictate when Hitler was born, came to power, killed himself, etc.? What is it really capturing? It certainly isn't capturing the actual Germany, merely a narrative of the actual Germany.


You can look the other way too. We know approximately how many people died in Auschwitz, how many survived, perhaps where some people slept, the general functions of the camp, the general day to day workings, but do we actually know anything? Can this textual evidence really tell us much? Now take a survivor, who is telling their story, who doesn't have the numbers, or the dates, or the names, but has the experience of the events, which perhaps are recorded with mistakes in memory (it has been shown that certain testimony conflicts with what actually occurred, in terms of dates, and numbers, and such) or subject to memory gaps, but take that form of history, and quite simply, you have something which is far more real, far more historical, even with all its gaps and holes, and misremembered dates.

[JBI]

And yet, and yet....

An event as amorphous as a war has many 'histories', not least the impact on individuals - to the individuals concerned, what happened to them is what The War was about. When I was a child I listened to endless stories about What Happened in The War (the Second World War): these were oral histories, ie the 'What Happened to Me/Us in The War', and they were fascinating but much as they impinged directly on what was happening to my family and friends in those immediate post-war years, they were only fragments of the picture. The answers to questions such as 'But why were you fire-watching? Why did you join the Home Guard? Why was your friend Ivor in the desert? Why was George in Normandy?' were questions that received somewhat vague answers, not because my parents didn't know the answers but because the whole episode was too big to be answered in a simple way. It was not until I came to read accounts constructed by people who took the trouble to collate the many fragments, from first-hand accounts, reports from the Front, letters etc, etc etc, that a larger picture began to emerge. And no one book can do it justice - it takes the reading of many books to see the many points of view from which an event as big as a war can be judged.

I don't pretend to be an expert but I do find the answer to the question 'How did we get where we are today?' an endlessly fascinating one, whether the 'we' is my family, the country in which I happen to be living at the moment, Europe, the West, the World. I am aware of the shortcomings of textual history, I am aware of the value of oral history - I think they work together, not against each other, so to the OP, I would say, yes, all kinds of History are important and we should know as much as possible about how we came to be where we are.

When you were hearing and recording in your head the stories you were told when you are younger, as you said you did, then you had a personal time-binding experience with the history itself. When reading the text though, unless you are copying it out, I don't think the same sort of transmission occurred. Certainly, you will contend that the effect of oral narrative, of testimony had a more personal reaction, especially if you were the direct audience? Certainly a history textbook, with a spatially considered audience must have enacted a wall between you and what was going on? Now, lets say the oral accounts could no longer exist, because of time, would the written accounts really be anything without them, or would they lose their foundation of meaning? See what I mean with the time lost, and inability to capture time within text? The lack of personalized narrative and direct audience puts a barrier between the events and the historian, so that when, for instance, you hear 100,000 people died in such and such battle, you cannot react the same way as if you were told that by someone who had been there, and seen the carnage. The more time between the battle and the present then, would create an even bigger barrier, to the point where the event is completely disconnected from the present. Through other mediums, such as art, one can try and recapture the oral components, but even then, you cannot come anywhere near close.

[Jozanny]

You can look the other way too. We know approximately how many people died in Auschwitz, how many survived, perhaps where some people slept, the general functions of the camp, the general day to day workings, but do we actually know anything? Can this textual evidence really tell us much? Now take a survivor, who is telling their story, who doesn't have the numbers, or the dates, or the names, but has the experience of the events, which perhaps are recorded with mistakes in memory (it has been shown that certain testimony conflicts with what actually occurred, in terms of dates, and numbers, and such) or subject to memory gaps, but take that form of history, and quite simply, you have something which is far more real, far more historical, even with all its gaps and holes, and misremembered dates.

Well, with your degree of relativism, the oral narrative of a Holocaust denier is as important as the oral narrative of a survivor. Fine, but I think justice is a value that drives a responsible scholar towards revisionism, one that maintains a healthy skepticism against propaganda. If China's state narrative about the Cultural Revolution is as valid as the US's conflicted narrative about the rightness or wrongness of the Vietnam policing action, why is the former still a Third World country? China has not been a world power for a very long time, and I can bet the sterile conformity of its official version of events has a good deal to do with this. At least free societies allow for internalized debates.

[JBI]

Well, with your degree of relativism, the oral narrative of a Holocaust denier is as important as the oral narrative of a survivor. Fine, but I think justice is a value that drives a responsible scholar towards revisionism, one that maintains a healthy skepticism against propaganda. If China's state narrative about the Cultural Revolution is as valid as the US's conflicted narrative about the rightness or wrongness of the Vietnam policing action, why is the former still a Third World country? China has not been a world power for a very long time, and I can bet the sterile conformity of its official version of events has a good deal to do with this. At least free societies allow for internalized debates.

I trust you read Chinese? I trust you've also done archival work in China, and gone around digging up primary sources, and hearing testimony? Or perhaps you are a first hand witness?

The point - everything you know has been related to you through narrative. I do not deny that perhaps these events may have occurred, but I deny they have occurred in this fashion. And, it isn't nice to make jumping accusations of third world, and free societies. America's human rights record in the world is hardly perfect either, and for that matter, Neither is France's or The United Kingdom's. It's easy to snicker at The Chinese, and The Russians and them Japs and what not, but in terms of governments, it's hard for someone to not pounce on Them Americans for their countless human rights violations.

The Propaganda is perhaps thicker in the States than it was in The Soviet Union, in truth, I would argue so, as back there, people knew it was propaganda, whereas in the States, and in these so called "Free countries", it seems like no one questions anything.

Perhaps the term 3rd world country too is a mere myth. As far as I know, China has far less resources per capita than, somewhere like Canada, and has a history of foreign powers, British, Japanese, Etc. meddling in its affairs, and disturbing the balance of power. Beyond that too, there is also the political and economic pressure placed on China from them Freedom Loving Yanks and the rest of the world for the passed 70 odd years, perhaps that helped. From what I understand of history, the Chinese economic and social development has been staggeringly fast relative to the rest of the world - going from a pre-industrial society to a super power is hardly an easy task, especially with the rest of the world spreading propaganda that you are somehow evil. But what do I know? I'm not Chinese either - my views, naturally, are skewed too.

As far as I know though, when it comes to Propaganda, China is hardly as big a spreader as the American media consensus. The only reason that the Second Gulf War that is raging in Iraq right now is not subject to the same footage as the first one (and I bet they'd reuse some of the clips too), is because, quite simply, there are too many other bodies on the ground this time, and not American ones mind you, but people's ones, grass roots ones, like al-Jazeera, which is pretty much dismissed on this side of the world.

I see no more debate in the United States than I do in China - I don't see people, for instance, asking what Obama means when he talks about "Change", "Hope", "Freedom" and "Respect". I see more coverage on where he goes, then what he does. Where is the debate there? Do people question what CNN say, or what The New York Times reports? That is spacial media at its finest, dominating space and assembling empire. Sure, it's all nice and fine to jump on the "unfree" societies, but it is a lot more difficult, and perhaps rewarding to question your own. But what kind of system is going to question itself?

It's a bit of a challenge actually, to question one's history as perhaps distorted, for the same reasons that history exists, because to challenge it would mean to challenge a sense of meaning, but to then go and poke at other people, for the same faults in history as make up your own, that to me sounds a lot like a form of propaganda in itself. It may be interesting to note also, that the same reasons for invading Afghanistan were given by the USSR as the United States - perhaps that's something to ponder. Perhaps things aren't as black and white as they may seem. China's view of itself is most definitely different than the U.S.'s view of China, and likewise, China's view of the U.S. is different than the U.S.'s view of itself. I just find it rude that people are so open to jump on cultures without turning the blade on themselves, and asking, well, perhaps China is this, and is that, but why then are they the ones that keep saving our country from going bankrupt, and loaning us the money necessary to be all that we claim to be?

[mortalterror]

But what do I know? I'm not Chinese either - my views, naturally, are skewed too.

To put it mildly.


I just find it rude that people are so open to jump on cultures without turning the blade on themselves, and asking, well, perhaps USA is this, and is that, but why then are they the ones that keep saving our country...

[JBI]

To put it mildly.

Is your marking of the USA trying to show that I'm a Canadian, so I shouldn't talk - I was merely trying to find a common ground. I have been critical of Canadian historiography and narrative for a while, and have written on the subject. I recommend you look into something like Linda Hutcheon's set of essays, The Canadian Postmodern for how this perspective relates to Canada. As it is, there is quite the criticism of America's perception of itself coming from within its own borders, some far more severe than anything I have said. Chomsky comes to mind first, as he is the most significant, but there has been a backlash against historiography for a while - though in American discourse, it seems to be far more nihilistic than in Canadian. In truth, it is virtually impossible to say anything definite about Canadian history without a gigantic backlash - or of Canadian history in general, outside of the popular market, as is the case in most Western countries, much of the U.S. included.

It just so happens though, that new approaches in historiography are not realized. History, as a subject of inquiry, is as rooted on methodology as any other discourse, science, art, and literature included. The problem is, these discourses go unheard of, and are rejected as somehow radical (which, to an extent, they are, but that is no reason to reject them), "leftist" (which in many places is still a curse word, and is used liberally to apply to anyone who dissents), or simply too foreign, too complicated, too theoretical.

I hope that is what you were looking for, otherwise I have no clue why you chose to change China to Bold, unless of course you were making an ironic joke, in which case, I apologize for giving it attention.

Edit: on rereading, I think what you were trying to get at, was that the U.S. was somehow saving Canada? Well, I haven't seen the evidence at all to support this - it seems a common myth, sure enough http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s35kBpvxfsc - but is it founded on anything?

[librarius_qui]

What is it worth though?



On knowledge of your origins (family):

~ A very particular kind of pride.
~ An interesting sense of some of the main reasons of you being who you are, good things (which you could be proud about) and bad things (that you are supposed to think, understand, change.)

[mortalterror]

Edit: on rereading, I think what you were trying to get at, was that the U.S. was somehow saving Canada? Well, I haven't seen the evidence at all to support this - it seems a common myth, sure enough http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s35kBpvxfsc - but is it founded on anything?

Yeah, that was more or less one of the things I meant by that. Also, you seem to have this cartoonish notion of what America is like; which makes me doubt you've spent any serious time here. It's a criticism you often level at people talking about China or the Middle East and I thought you should start by applying it to yourself. You talk about America the way a white supremacist talks about Jews, and I know that's not your intention. You might want to temper your radical opinions with a more moderate textbook about American history, something that doesn't paint us all as bloodthirsty psychopaths. Just give us the slack you'd cut for China and I think we'd be good.

[librarius_qui]

...
and I thought you should start by applying it to yourself.



(This is quite agreeable ...)




...
(and I know that's not your intention.) You might want to temper your radical opinions with a more moderate textbook about American history,



So, is History important?
I think so.

Is History "the truth"?
Now that's ANOTHER question, to another thread. (In the philosophy texts forum. To talk preferably about texts on this ...)


lq~

[JBI]

Yeah, that was more or less one of the things I meant by that. Also, you seem to have this cartoonish notion of what America is like; which makes me doubt you've spent any serious time here. It's a criticism you often level at people talking about China or the Middle East and I thought you should start by applying it to yourself. You talk about America the way a white supremacist talks about Jews, and I know that's not your intention. You might want to temper your radical opinions with a more moderate textbook about American history, something that doesn't paint us all as bloodthirsty psychopaths. Just give us the slack you'd cut for China and I think we'd be good.

As for not applying them to myself, the reason I jump on the U.S., is quite simply, if I jumped on Canada, I probably wouldn't make sense to anyone here, as quite simply, most people here know virtually nothing about Canadian history, culture, mentality, or policy. I do think, however, that within my own understanding of myself, I am just as harsh on Canadian policy as American.

Which history book? Which one would give me such an account that will influence me the other way - I hope you catch the irony in that, the fact that you recommend a text on American history so as to create a new perspective on events, something which I have been arguing is used to create these notions of self and other. Do you see the historical problems here? How the text is used to create the sense of event, whereas the text is only verifiable by other text, and therefore the complete sense of textual truth is based on accounts with specific intention and construction.

[librarius_qui]

If you want to be really "impartial"/"neutral(istic)", try to begin through the encyclopaedia ...

(I recommend the Britannica, the Larousse, one in German, why not? ... One in Spanish.)

Best way of being neutral/impartial, to me, is to search for the viewpoint of different cultures. If you are very demanding. And you seem to be.

[JBI]

If you want to be really "impartial"/"neutral(istic)", try to begin through the encyclopaedia ...

(I recommend the Britannica, the Larousse, one in German, why not? ... One in Spanish.)

Best way of being neutral/impartial, to me, is to search for the viewpoint of different cultures. If you are very demanding. And you seem to be.

Since when was Britannica neutral? Since when was anything neutral. And don't doubt that I have read history from many perspectives - I, just like anyone who reads history, merely came to the conclusions based on the evidence I saw before me.

[Jozanny]

If you want to be really "impartial"/"neutral(istic)", try to begin through the encyclopaedia ...

(I recommend the Britannica, the Larousse, one in German, why not? ... One in Spanish.)

Best way of being neutral/impartial, to me, is to search for the viewpoint of different cultures. If you are very demanding. And you seem to be.

Because part of his point, as I understand it, is that written text is no more a reliable indicator of historical memory than is an oral tale which gets passed along (like Beowulf) until someone transcribes it. Post-modern suspicion of cohesion is still sexy in some areas of the literati, but I can't buy this thesis from Innis, if I am getting it correctly, from his advocate.

Events occur. People want to know why the occurred and to understand them. This is not an entirely impossible task. Edward the VIII abdicated. To me it is an interesting blip in 20th century English history with more than a few facets to it. One can take those facets and make a reasonable reconstruction--and where you don't have documents, anthropology and its sister sciences serve as aides.

The narrative, the argument, is all we have, and it is this that makes us human. The tool has its limitations, but shooting canon balls in the air and saying every story is just a story is a rather lazy agnostic mental strip tease.

[JBI]

That isn't Innis' thesis - Innis wasn't a post-modernist at any rate either (he died in 52). Innis' theory deal with how time and space are affected and transcribed through the medium. I merely took that, and threw in some other theories, to create some sort of mongoloid which essentially means, if no history can be accurate, the oral history most certainly would be preferred, as it handles time better.

[Jozanny]

I know you're very smart JBI, which makes me wonder about both of us, but boiling everything down to relativity isn't always going to leave you satisfied. I am working on an opinion piece involving the *t* word and the fellow who is back in Texas after having nearly destroyed the world. My essay is an attack on the left over the *t* word. Anyone who knows me would wonder if I have taken leave of my senses. It is possible, but I have my reasons. One of which is that conviction increasingly becomes attractive with age.

[librarius_qui]

Since when was Britannica neutral? Since when was anything neutral. And don't doubt that I have read history from many perspectives - I, just like anyone who reads history, merely came to the conclusions based on the evidence I saw before me.

Well, I gave you the hint. If you won't try it for yourself, it's up to you, and there's nothing anyone can make or say to help you. Faith depends on trial. If you try, you will find. If you don't, you won't.

That's all for me, with JBI.----

"Is History important?"

If anyone else wishes to talk about what I proposed, I'm here for him.~

[jocky]

History is seriously important but, only to historians!

[Buh4Bee]

I just found this thread and am going to jump right into the argument or make another point. I do believe history is very important. I think many of these reasons have already been discusses, such as identity politics.

There is one book I would recommend reading or just knowing about, because it illustrates a fine point about the importance of history.
The book is called Guns, Germs, and Steel and was written by Jared Diamond. The book is quite accessible, although a little dry at times. One of the main thesis of the book is to reexamine world history and offer an alternative explanation why Europe emerged as such a dominate world force and subjugated so many other cultures. This is a huge endeavor, but Diamond is able to pull it off (Pultzer Prize Winner). He examines cultures across the globe and for example, explains why some become more technologically advanced than others by examining environmental factor such as farming and animal domestication. Societies that could store food had more time for leisure, which lead to specialist (technological people), philosophers, and government officials. Once reaching the conclusion, it reject any notion that one nation is racially superior to another, and allows you, the reader to articulate a well-developed argument that rejects this "stupid and antiquated theory". This book opens up your eyes and promotes another historical perspective on European world dominance.

I think books like this remind us that, although history can be bent, twisted, and manipulated for the oppressor's point of view, it can also be used to advanced fair and alternative theories about humanity as we exist today.

[Niamh]

History is seriously important but, only to historians!

And Archaeologists....
And history enthusiasts....

[blazeofglory]

History is something that must give us lessons,and history should not assume importance outside this domain in point of fact. History is in point of fact not important in other senses, for we kind of must not let history repeat. Of course modernity must be taken differently not by affiliating with the dead past.

For the past is dead and the vitally important time is this present and live for the present not for the past.

We kind of idealize particular sets of ideas forgetting that all that of the past simply deadens the present.

[blazeofglory]

History is important to the extent we learn from history, or else it is a dead thing.

But most historical things are fabricated.