Subscribe Us

WHAT IS HISTORY?

0
 History is the transmission of acquired skills from one generation to another.It is  the study of the past from the present to foresee the future.Those who study history are called 'students of history' or 'historians'. History is a tool to understanding the world around us and to understand ourselves as well. History is all about the historians experience. 

The impact you make in the world makes you.History is all about time,space change.The totality of the activities of man over time and space.Everyone is a contributor and participant of history and that is why it is called a process and a study.As a process including man.woman.girl,boy.old,young,rich,poor,strong.mighty,weak,lawyers.historians,archaeologists, anthropologists,scientists,pastors,priests,bishops,doctors, engineers,politicians,beggars,teacher,etc. are part of the process which cannot be static. 

Nothing is new in history but your interpretation and contribution is what is new.

History is an important branch of knowledge or discipline in the study of man and society.It has been defined in various forms by different scholars and philosophers for meaningful understanding.History is the totalility of the activities of man over time and space. Karl Marx defined process as the relationship between man and his environment and his environment on man. from the definition, we are referring to the episodes,events,and the totality of changes and experiences which humanity has undergone ever since the emergence of human existence. History is further more defined as an academic discipline as the construction,study and explanation of these changes which humanity has undergone.Edward Hallett Carr in his work 'what is history?' defined history as the continuous processs of interaction between the historian and his facts and unending dialogue between the present and the past.

History is the German floor of other discipline and it is the basis of other discipline.It is for academic convenience that we have other discipline. The approach of history is different.Some other discipline are highly judgemental and some predict the future.However, the methodological approach of history is different from others.History is the organized critical study of past activities of human beings as had produced significant effects on subsequent cause of events.History is centered on society in the past but one that has meaning and value to man in society today.

The subject matter of history is man.History is concerned with all transformation in society.That is to say the changing patterns of man's society.History is not concerned with a stagnant past but one in motion.A phenomenon that makes change inevitable.A person who studies history is a/an historian or a student of history.History is all about the historians experience. History is interpretation.It begins with the handing down of tradition,and tradition means carrying of the habits and lessons of the part into the future.Records of the past begin to be kept for benefit of future generations.Historians have the future in their bones.

The backbone of history is fact. The content of history can be realized only as we experience it.History is the record of what one age finds worthy of note in another.The historian collects facts and then he interprets them.History is what the historian makes.Always make sure you study the historian before you study the facts.

Facts alone are needed or wanted in life.All information is within reach and every problem is capable of solution.The facts of history do not exist for any historian till he creates them.The reflection of our position in time forms part of our answer to the broader question of what we take of the society in which we belong or live.Facts are sacred,opinion is free.A mere fact about the part is transformed into a fact of history.The nagging distinction between facts of history and other facts about the past vanishes,because the few known facts are all facts of history.The facts, whether found in documents or not, have stil to be processed by the historian before he can make any use of them.The facts of history were themselves a demonstration of the supreme fact of a beneficent and apparently infinite progress towards higher things.The facts of history is the object of the historian's inquiry of the behaviour of individuals.
The impact you make in the world makes you.Everyone is a contributor and partaker of history.history is everyone's experience and it is the study of the past from the present to foresee the future.When you understand events, you will the people that makes the events!
Objectivity is based on facts-making a decision that is based on facts that cannot be influenced.One offer to critical and sceptical.beware of something nasty which pretends to be something nice! Can you be objective in decision making?



Definitions of history on the Web:
  • the aggregate of past events; "a critical time in the school's history"
  • a record or narrative description of past events; "a history of France"; "he gave an inaccurate account of the plot to kill the president"; "the story of exposure to lead"
  • the discipline that records and interprets past events involving human beings; "he teaches Medieval history"; "history takes the long view"
  • the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future; "all of human history"
  • all that is remembered of the past as preserved in writing; a body of knowledge; "the dawn of recorded history"; "from the beginning of history"
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • History (from Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study of the human past. Scholars who write about history are called historians. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
  • The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was written by English historian Edward Gibbon and published in six volumes. Volume I was published in 1776, and went through six printings. Volumes II and III were published in 1781; volumes IV, V, VI in 1788–89. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History
  • History, formerly known as The History Channel, is an international satellite and cable TV channel that broadcasts programs regarding historical events and persons, as well as various metaphysical, pseudoscientific, and paranormal phenomena—often with observations and explanations by noted ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(TV_channel)
  • The various Unix shells maintain a record of the commands issued by the user during the current session. The history command manipulates this history list. In its simplest form, it prints the history list. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(Unix)
  • History is a historical journal published on behalf of the Historical Association (by Blackwell).
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(journal)
  • History is a science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov. It was first published in the March 1941 issue of Super Science Stories and reprinted in the 1972 collection The Early Asimov.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(short_story)
  • "History" is a song by English rock band The Verve, and is featured on their second album, A Northern Soul. It was released 18 September 1995 as the third and final single from the album, charting at #24 in the UK Singles Chart (see 1995 in British music). ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(The_Verve_song)
  • History is the thirteenth studio album by American singer-songwriter Loudon Wainwright III, released on September 21, 1992 on Charisma Records. The album was recorded following the death of Wainwright's father, Loudon Wainwright Jr.. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(Loudon_Wainwright_III_album)
  • All human societies have medical beliefs that provide explanations for birth, death, and disease. Throughout history, illness has been attributed to witchcraft, demons, adverse astral influence, or the will of the gods. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(medicine)
  • History: A Novel (La Storia) is a novel by Italian author Elsa Morante, largely seen to be her most famous and controversial work. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_(novel)
  • When am I ever going to use this? Why do we need to know this stuff? The questions every teacher loves to hear. The answer is actually pretty simple, "To know yourself".
    What is important about history? Why so people need to know all those names and dates. The reality is, they do not, and can not. There are so many important people and dates, it is impossible for any one to know all of them. Besides, it is pretty easy to look up most of the factual information most people need on any thing close to a frequent status. The importance is not in the specifics but the lessons.
    In the movie Amistad, John Quincy Adams, played by Anthony Hopkins, is arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court. He meanders around the court chambers looking at the busts of the founding fathers, including his own father, John Adams. He sums up the importance of history very succinctly when he says, "Who we are, is who they were."
    The importance of history is the importance of understanding yourself. There can be no true understanding of the present with out knowledge of the past. Everything happening in the world today is a piece of a long line of events, decisions and lives that came before. By not knowing the past, it is not possible to know the present or the future.
    No one knows what will happen in the future, but the past can help guide us into the future. The lessons of the past are like a map into the future. The map is blurred and maybe even missing pieces, but it is the best we have. By examining the struggles, successes and failures of our ancestors, we learn how to examine ourselves and move forward.
    Not all the lessons learned will be correct or successful. That will be for future generations to study and try to learn from. The mere act of trying to learn from the past and knowing the stories of the many different people is a tribute to their lives. Saying history is boring and worthless is saying the lives of all the people that came before us were worthless. That is certainly not the case.
    So remember, history is not just a bunch of names and dates. History is the story of how we became who we now are. You may disagree with some of it, or not care about some, or wish it were something else. Either way you are learning something about yourself right now, and that is the most important name and date to know.
     What is history? It sounds such a simple question doesn't it? But it can cause a lot of disagreement. Napoleon called it 'a myth' and Henry Ford called it 'bunk'! Other people think it is much more important, believing, like the American historian David McCullough, that "History is who we are and why we are the way we are."
    Whatever they think about the usefulness of history most people will, however, agree that history is the study of the past. In fact, historians are a bit like detectives - using evidence to find out what happened and why. This is not an easy job. You must be able to recognise evidence, decide how useful it is and come to conclusions based on what you have found out.
    We're going to find out how to do all this by using some real historical sources. Each section will teach you a new skill so that by the end you will be a history detective! You can work through the sections in order or use the navigation tools at the top or left-hand side of the page to go to the section you are interested in. Have fun!
  • history.gif (7470 bytes) What follows are a series of quotations about history and the historian's craft. They have been culled from a variety of sources and they appear here in totally random order. Their purpose is to incite, energize and stimulate your historical imagination.
    *           *           *
    "'History,' Stephen said, 'is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.'" James Joyce
    "Since history has no properly scientific value, its only purpose is educative. And if historians neglect to educate the public, if they fail to interest it intelligently in the past, then all their historical learning is valueless except in so far as it educates themselves." G. M. Trevelyan.
    "To each eye, perhaps, the outlines of a great civilization present a different picture. In the wide ocean upon which we venture, the possible ways and directions are many; and the same studies which have served for my work might easily, in other hands, not only receive a wholly different treatment and application, but lead to essentially different conclusions." Jacob Burckhardt
    "History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illuminates reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life, and brings us tidings of antiquity." Cicero
    "The past is useless. That explains why it is past." Wright Morris
    "Faithfulness to the truth of history involves far more than a research, however patient and scrupulous, into special facts. Such facts may be detailed with the most minute exactness, and yet the narrative, taken as a whole, may be unmeaning or untrue. The narrator must seek to imbue himself with the life and spirit of the time. He must study events in their bearings near and remote; in the character, habits, and manners of those who took part in them. He must himself be, as it were, a sharer or a spectator of the action he describes." Francis Parkman
    "History . . . is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind." Edward Gibbon
    "There is properly no history; only biography." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    "The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things rotten through and through, to avoid." Livy
    "What experience and history teach is this-that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it." G. W. F. Hegel
    "Everything must be recaptured and relocated in the general framework of history, so that despite the difficulties, the fundamental paradoxes and contradictions, we may respect the unity of history which is also the unity of life." Fernand Braudel
    "The function off the historian is neither to love the past nor to emancipate himself from the past, but to master and understand it as the key to the understanding of the present." E. H. Carr
    "If you do not like the past, change it." William L. Burton
    "History does nothing, possesses no enormous wealth, fights no battles. It is rather man, the real, living man, who does everything, possesses, fights. It is not History, as if she were a person apart, who uses men as a means to work out her purposes, but history itself is nothing but the activity of men pursuing their purposes." Karl Marx
    "An historian should yield himself to his subject, become immersed in the place and period of his choice, standing apart from it now and then for a fresh view." Samuel Eliot Morison
    "History is for human self-knowledge. Knowing yourself means knowing, first, what it is to be a person; secondly, knowing what it is to be the kind of person you are; and thirdly, knowing what it is to be the person you are and nobody else is. Knowing yourself means knowing what you can do; and since nobody knows what they can do until they try, the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is." R. G. Collingwood
    "History is more or less bunk." Henry Ford
    "That historians should give their own country a break, I grant you; but not so as to state things contrary to fact. For there are plenty of mistakes made by writers out of ignorance, and which any man finds it difficult to avoid. But if we knowingly write what is false, whether for the sake of our country or our friends or just to be pleasant, what difference is there between us and hack writers? Readers should be very attentive to and critical of historians, and they in turn should be constantly on their guard." Polybius
    "You have reckoned that history ought to judge the past and to instruct the contemporary world as to the future. The present attempt does not yield to that high office. It will merely tell how it really was." Leopold von Ranke
    "Time in its irresistible and ceaseless flow carries along on its flood all created things and drowns them in the depths of obscurity. . . . But the tale of history forms a very strong bulwark against the stream of time, and checks in some measure its irresistible flow, so that, of all things done in it, as many as history has taken over it secures and binds together, and does not allow them to slip away into the abyss of oblivion." Anna Comnena
    "Only a good-for-nothing is not interested in his past." Sigmund Freud
    "Every past is worth condemning." Friedrich Nietzsche
    "The historian does simply not come in to replenish the gaps of memory. He constantly challenges even those memories that have survived intact." Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi
    "Each age tries to form its own conception of the past. Each age writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time." Frederick Jackson Turner
     
  •  
  • History is the study of the past, including the prehistory of man, all the way back until our origin in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Modern history is generally thought to begin in Classical Antiquity, around 800 BCE, when large numbers of scholars began to write things down. Herodotus of Halicarnassus (484 BCE – ca. 425 BCE) and Thucydides (ca. 460 BCE – ca. 400 BCE) are generally considered the "fathers of history," with the latter taking special care to use a scientific approach in the study of history, attributing major events to human choice rather than divine intervention.
    Today, history forms a huge component of human knowledge in general, alongside cultural and scientific knowledge, both of which overlap with history. Historians place a great emphasis on primary sources; people writing based on events they or their immediate friends actually experienced, rather than secondary sources, writing merely based on hearsay. Also important are comparisons between primary sources — without comparisons, it can be difficult to validate historical claims. Obviously, the history of an invasion will be written differently by the conquerers and the conquered.
    History is generally periodized into several broad strokes, to make it easier to analyze and understand. First is prehistory, extending over a couple hundred thousand years, from the beginning of humanity to the Neolithic Revolution, which began between 10,000 and 8,000 BCE. The Neolithic Revolution heralded the beginning of agriculture, the establishment of the first cities and non-agricultural classes.
    Thousands of years after the Neolithic Revolution, various ancient civilizations were founded: Mesopotamia (5000 BCE), the Indus Valley Civilization (3300 BCE), ancient Egypt (3150 BCE), ancient China (3000 BCE), Minoan Crete (2700 BCE), Mycenaean Greece (1600 BCE), Kingdom of Israel (930 BCE), ancient Rome (900 BCE), and many others. Historians study these on a civilization-by-civilization basis, with objectivity as the primary goal.
    The end of the era of ancient history is arbitrary, but the year 476 CE, when the Western Roman Empire fell, is often cited. Between 476 and around 1492 is the period of time known as the Middle Ages, while from 1492 to today is called the Modern Era. Modern history focuses mostly on the last 500 years.

    What Is History?

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    What is History?  
    Cover to the 1990 edition
    Author E. H. Carr
    Country United Kingdom
    Language English
    Genre(s) Historiography lectures
    Publisher University of Cambridge & Penguin Books
    Publication date 1961
    What Is History? is a 1961 non-fiction book by historian Edward Hallett Carr on historiography. It discusses history, facts, the bias of historians, science, morality, individuals and society, and moral judgements in history.
    The book originated in a series of lectures given by Carr in 1961 at the University of Cambridge. The lectures were intended as a broad introduction into the subject of the theory of history and their accessibility has resulted in What is History? becoming one of the key texts in the field of historiography.
    Nevertheless, some of Carr's ideas are contentious, particularly his relativism and his rejection of contingency as an important factor in historical analysis. His work provoked a number of responses, most notably Geoffrey Elton's The Practice of History.
    Carr was in the process of revising What is History? for a second edition at the time of his death.[citation needed]

    [edit] What Is History?

    Carr is also famous today for his work of historiography, What is History? (1961), a book based upon his series of G. M. Trevelyan lectures, delivered at the University of Cambridge between January–March 1961. In this work, Carr argued that he was presenting a middle-of-the-road position between the empirical view of history and R. G. Collingwood's idealism.[1] Carr rejected the empirical view of the historian's work being an accretion of "facts" that he or she has at their disposal as nonsense.[1] Carr claimed:
    "The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate".[2]
    Carr maintained that there is such a vast quantity of information, at least about post-Dark Ages times, that the historian always chooses the "facts" he or she decides to make use of.[1] In Carr's famous example, he claimed that millions had crossed the Rubicon, but only Julius Caesar's crossing in 49 BC is declared noteworthy by historians.[1][3] Carr divided facts into two categories: "facts of the past", that is historical information that historians deem unimportant, and "historical facts", information that the historians have decided is important.[1][4] Carr contended that historians quite arbitrarily determine which of the "facts of the past" to turn into "historical facts" according to their own biases and agendas.[1][5] Carr stated that:
    "Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. This is, after all, not very abstruse. It is what is already done by the intelligent undergraduate who, when recommended to read a work by that great scholar Jones of St. Jude's, goes round to a friend at St. Jude's to ask what sort of chap Jones is, and what bees he has in his bonnet. When you read a work of history, always listen out for the buzzing. If you can detect none, either you are tone deaf or your historian is a dull dog. The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation. Indeed, if, standing Sir George Clark on his head, I were to call history "a hard core of interpretation surrounded by a pulp of disputable facts", my statement would, no doubt, be one-sided and misleading, but no more so, I venture to think, than the original dictum"[6]
    For this reason, Carr argued that Leopold von Ranke's famous dictum wie es eigentlich gewesen (show what actually happened) was wrong because it presumed that the "facts" influenced what the historian wrote, rather than the historian choosing what "facts of the past" he or she intended to turn into "historical facts".[7] At the same time, Carr argued that the study of the facts may lead the historian to change his or her views.[1] In this way, Carr argued that history was "an unending dialogue between the past and present".[1][8]
    Carr used as an example of how he believed that "facts of the past" were transformed into the "facts of history" an obscure riot that took place in Wales in 1850 that saw a gingerbread seller beaten to death.[2] Carr argued that this incident had been totally ignored by historians until the 1950s when George Kitson Clark mentioned it in one of his books.[2] Since Kitson Clark, Carr claimed that several other historians have cited the same riot for what it revealed about Victorian Britain, leading Carr to assert that the riot and the murder of the gingerbread seller was in the progress of going from a "fact of the past" to a "fact of history" that in the future will be regularly cited by historians.[2] Another example Carr used in his theory was the publication in 1932 of the papers of the former German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann by his secretary Bernhard.[9] Carr noted when Stresemann died in 1929, he left behind 300 boxes of papers relating to his time in office, and in 1932 Bernhard published three volumes of Stresemann's papers under the title Stresemanns Vermächtnis.[9] Carr noted that because of the Locarno Treaties, for which Stresemann was a co-winner of the Nobel peace prize, Bernhard devoted most of the papers in Stresemanns Vermächtnis to Stresemann's work with relations to Britain and France.[9] Carr noted that the documents of the Auswärtiges Amt and Stresemann's own papers show that Stresemann was far more concerned with relations with the Soviet Union instead of the Western powers, and that Bernhard had edited the selection in Stresemanns Vermächtnis to focus more on Stresemann's Nobel Peace Prize-winning successes and to make him seem more like an apostle of peace than what he really was (one of Stresemann's major interests was in partitioning Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union).[10] Moreover, Carr noted that when an English translation of Stresemanns Vermächtnis was published in 1935, the translator abbreviated one-third of the German original to focus more on those aspects of Stresemann's diplomacy that were of primary interest to British readers, which had the effect of making it seem that Stesemann was almost exclusively concerned with relations with the Western powers and had little time for relations with the Soviet Union.[11] Carr commented that were it only the English translation of Stresemanns Vermächtnis that had survived World War II, then historians would have been seriously misled about what Stresemann had been up to as Foreign Minister.[11] Finally Carr argued that in the conversations between Stresemann and the Soviet Foreign Commissar Georgy Chicherin, Stresemann does most of the talking and says all of the intelligent and original things, leading Carr to suggest that Stresemann himself had edited the papers to place himself in the best possible light.[12] Carr used Stresemanns Vermächtnis to argue for the subjective nature of the documents historians used, which he then used to support his attacks against the idea of the work of the historians being purely that of an totally objective observer who "lets the facts speak for themselves".[12]
    Likewise, Carr charged that historians are always influenced by the present when writing about the past. As an example, he used the changing viewpoints about the German past expressed by the German historian Friedrich Meinecke during the Imperial, Weimar, Nazi and post-war periods to support his contention.[13] The British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, one of Carr's leading critics, summarized Carr's argument as:
    "George Grote, the 19th-century historian of Greece, was an enlightened radical banker; therefore, his picture of Periclean Athens is merely an allegory of 19th century England as seen by an enlightened banker. Mommsen's History of Rome is similarly dismissed as a product and illustration of pre-Bismarckian Germany. Sir Lewis Namier's choice of subject and treatment of it simply show the predictable prejudices of a Polish conservative".[14]
    In general, Carr held to a deterministic outlook in history.[15] In Carr's opinion, all that happens in the world had a cause, and events could not have happened differently unless there was a different cause.[15] In Carr's example, if one's friend Smith suddenly starts acting out of character one day, then it must be understood that there is a reason for the strange behaviour, and that if that reason did not exist, then Smith would be acting normally.[16] Carr criticized counter-factual history as a "parlour game" played by the "losers" in history.[17] Carr contended that those who engaged in counter-factual speculations about Russian history, such as if Count Pyotr Stolypin's land reforms were given enough time, would the Russian Revolution have been prevented, were those who were uncomfortable about the fact that the Bolsheviks were the "winners" of Russian history and their opponents were not.[17] Likewise, Carr asserted those who stress the importance of "accidents" as a central causal agent in history were the "losers" of history, who wished to explain away their defeats as the workings of chance and fate.[18] In the same way, Carr argued that historians must concern themselves with the "winners" of history.[19] In Carr's example, it is those who score centuries in cricket matches who are recorded, not those who are dismissed for ducks, and in the same way, Carr maintained that a preoccupation with the "losers" would be the equivalent of someone only listing the losers of cricket games.[20] Carr dismissed the free will arguments made by Sir Karl Popper and Sir Isaiah Berlin as Cold War propaganda meant to discredit communism.[21] In a similar way, Carr took a hostile view of those historians who stress the workings of chance and contingency in the workings of history.[15] In Carr's view, such historians did not understand their craft very well, or were in some way identified with the "losers" of history.[15]
    In the same way, Carr argued that no individual is truly free of the social environment in which they live, but contended that within those limitations, there was room, albeit very narrow room for people to make decisions that have an impact on history.[22] Carr made a division between those who, like Vladimir Lenin and Oliver Cromwell, helped to shape the social forces which carried them to historical greatness and those who, like Otto von Bismarck and Napoleon, rode on the back of social forces over which they had little or no control.[23] Though Carr was willing to grant individuals a role in history, he argued that those who focus exclusively on individuals in a Great man theory of history were doing a profound disservice to the past.[24] As an example, Carr complained of those historians who explained the Russian Revolution solely as the result of the "stupidity" of Emperor Nicholas II (which Carr regarded as a factor, but only of lesser importance) rather than the work of great social forces.[24]
    Carr claimed that when examining causation in history, historians should seek to find "rational" causes of historical occurrences, that is causes that can be generalized across time to explain other occurrences in other times and places.[15] For Carr, historical "accidents" cannot be generalized, and are thus not worth the historian's time.[15] Carr illustrated his theory by telling a story of a man named Robinson who went out to buy some cigarettes one night, and was killed by an automobile with defective brakes driven by a drunk driver named Jones on a sharp turn of the road.[25] Carr argued one could contend that the "real" reasons for the accident that killed Robinson might be the defective brakes or the sharp turn of the road or the inebriated state of Jones, but that to argue that it was Robinson's wish to buy cigarettes that was the cause, while a factor, was not the "real" cause of his death.[26] As such, Carr argued that those who were seeking to prevent a repeat of Robinson's death would do well to pass laws regulating drunk driving, straightening the sharp turn of the road and the quality of automobile brakes, but would be wasting their time passing a law forbidding people to take a walk to buy cigarettes.[26] In a not too subtle dig at critics of determinism like Sir Karl Popper and Sir Isaiah Berlin, Carr spoke of the inquiry into Robinson's death being interrupted by two "distinguished gentlemen" who maintained quite vehemently that it was Robinson's wish to buy cigarettes that caused his death.[26] In the same way, Carr argued that historians needed to find the "real" causes of historical events by finding the general trend which could inspire a better understanding of the present than by focusing on the role of the accidental and incidental.[27]
    As an example of his attack on the role of accidents in history, Carr mocked the hypothesis of "Cleopatra's nose" (Pascal's thought that, but for the magnetism exerted by the nose of Cleopatra on Mark Anthony, there would have been no affair between the two, and hence the Second Triumvirate would not have broken up, and therefore the Roman Republic would have continued).[28] Carr sarcastically commented that male attraction to female beauty can hardly be considered an accident at all, and is rather one of the more common cases of cause and effect in the world.[29] Other examples of "Cleopatra's Nose" types of history cited by Carr were the claim by Edward Gibbon that if the Turkish sultan Bayezid I did not suffer from gout, he would have conquered Central Europe, Winston Churchill's statement that if King Alexander had not died of a monkey bite, the Greco-Turkish War would have been avoided, and Leon Trotsky's remark that if he not contracted a cold while duck hunting, he would not have missed a crucial Politburo meeting in 1923.[28] Rather than accidents, Carr asserted history was a series of causal chains interacting with each other.[29] Carr contemptuously compared those like Winston Churchill who in his book The World Crisis claimed that the death of King Alexander from a monkey bite caused the Greek-Turkish war to those who would claim that the "real" cause of Robinson's death was his desire to buy cigarettes.[26] Carr argued that the claim that history was a series of "accidents" was merely an expression of the pessimism which Carr claimed was the dominant mood in Britain in 1961, due to the decline of the British Empire.[30]

    Bust of Cleopatra VII. In What is History? Carr dismissed the theory of "Cleopatra's Nose" as an example of the power of accidents in history
    In Carr's opinion, historical works that serve to broaden society's understanding of the past via generalizations are more "right" and "socially acceptable" than works that do not.[15] Citing Pieter Geyl, Carr argued that as the values of society changes, so do the values of historical works.[15][30] Carr argued that as society continues to progress in the 20th century, historians must change the values that they apply in writing their works to reflect the work of progress.[31] Carr argued during his lectures that Karl Marx had developed a schema for understanding past, present and the future that reflected the proper and dual role of the historian both to analyse the past and provide a call for action for the present in order to create a better future for humanity.[32]
    Carr emphatically contended that history was a social science, not an art,[33] because historians, like scientists, seek generalizations that help to broaden the understanding of one's subject.[33][34] Carr used the example of the word revolution, arguing that if the word did not have a specific meaning then it would make no sense for historians to write of revolutions, even though every revolution that occurred in history was in its own way unique.[33][35] Moreover, Carr claimed that historical generalizations were often related to lessons to be learned from other historical occurrences.[33][36] Since in Carr's view, lessons can be sought and learned in history, then history was more like a science than any art.[33][37] Though Carr conceded that historians cannot predict exact events in the future, he argued that historical generalizations can supply information useful to understanding both the present and the future.[33] Carr argued that since scientists are not purely neutral observers, but have a reciprocal relationship with the objects under their study just like historians, that this supported identifying history with the sciences rather than the arts.[33][38] Likewise, Carr contended that history like science has no moral judgements, which in his opinion supports the identification of history as a science.[33][39]
    Carr was well known for his assertions in What Is History? denying moral judgements in history.[40] Carr argued that it was ahistorical for the historian to judge people in different times according to the moral values of his or her time.[40] Carr argued that individuals should be judged only in terms of the values of their time and place, not by the values of the historian's time and/or place.[40] In Carr's opinion, historians should not act as judges.[41] Carr quoted Thomas Carlyle's remark on the British reaction to the French Revolution: "Exaggeration abounds, execration, wailing and on the whole darkness"...", and complained that exactly the same could be said about too much of Western commentary and writing on the Russian Revolution.[42] Likewise, Carr quoted Carlyle on the Reign of Terror as a way of confronting Western complaints about Soviet terror:
    "Horrible in lands that had known equal justice—not so unnatural in lands that had never known it".[42]
    Thus, Carr argued that within the context of the Soviet Union, Stalin was a force for the good.[40] In a 1979 essay, Carr argued about Stalin that:
    "He revived and outdid the worst brutalities of the earlier Tsars; and his record excited revulsion in later generations of historians. Yet his achievement in borrowing from the West, in forcing on primitive Russia the material foundations of modern civilisation, and in giving Russia a place among the European powers, obliged them to concede, however reluctantly his title to greatness. Stalin was the most ruthless despot Russia had known since Peter, and also a great westerniser".[40]
    Though Carr made it clear that he preferred that historians refrain from expressing moral opinions, he did argue that if the historian should find it necessary then such views should best be restricted to institutions rather than individuals.[40] Carr argued that such an approach was better because the focus on individuals served to provide a collective alibi for societies.[40] Carr used as examples those in United Kingdom who blamed appeasement solely upon Neville Chamberlain, those Germans who argued that Nazi-era crimes were the work of Adolf Hitler alone or those in the United States who blamed McCarthyism exclusively upon Senator Joseph McCarthy.[43] In Carr's opinion, historians should reject concepts like good and evil when making judgements about events and people.[44] Instead, Carr preferred the terms progressive or reactionary as the terms for value judgements.[45] In Carr's opinion, if a historical event such as the collectivisation of Soviet agriculture in the early 1930s led to the growth of the Soviet heavy industry and the achievement of the goals of the First Five Year Plan, then the collectivisation must be considered a progressive development in history, and hence all of the sufferings and millions of deaths caused by collectivisation, the "dekulakisation" campaign and the Holodomor were justified by the growth of Soviet heavy industry.[46] Likewise, Carr argued that the suffering of Chinese workers in the treaty ports and in the mines of South Africa in the late 19th-early 20th centuries was terrible, but must be considered a progressive development as it helped to push China towards the Communist revolution.[47] Carr argued that China was much better off under the leadership of Mao Zedong then it was under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek, and hence all of the developments that led to the fall of Chiang's regime in 1949 and the rise to power of Mao must considered progressive. Finally, Carr argued that historians can be "objective" if they are capable of moving beyond their narrow view of the situation both in the past and in the present, and can write historical works which helped to contribute to progress of society.[48]

    The Price of Progress? Child victim of the Holodomor. In Carr's view, the suffering and deaths in the Soviet Union during the First Five Year Plan period were justified by the growth in Soviet heavy industry in the early 1930s, which in turn allowed the Soviet Union to defeat Germany
    At the end of his lectures, Carr criticized a number of conservative/liberal historians and philosophers such as Hugh Trevor-Roper, Sir Karl Popper, Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison, Sir Lewis Bernstein Namier and Michael Oakeshott, and argued that "progress" in the world was against them.[49] Carr ended his book with the predication that "progress" would sweep away everything that Popper, Morision, Namier, Trever-Roper and Oakeshott believed in the 20th century just the same way that "progress" swept away the Catholic Church's opposition to Galileo Galilei's astronomical theories in the 17th century.[50] Elaborating on the theme of "progress" inevitably sweeping away the old order of things in the world, in a 1970 article entitled "Marxism and History", Carr argued that with the exception of the Mexican Revolution, every revolution in the last sixty-odd years had been led by Marxists[51]. The other revolutions Carr counted were the revolutions in Cuba, China, Russia, and a half-revolution in Vietnam (presumably a reference to the then on-going Vietnam War)[52]. This together with what Carr saw as the miserable condition of the Third World, which comprised most of the world led Carr to argue that Marxism had the greatest appeal in the Third World, and was the most likely wave of the future[53]. Carr expanded on this thesis of "progress" being an unstoppable force in September 1978 when he stated:
    "I think we have to consider seriously the hypothesis that the world revolution of which [the Bolshevik revolution] was the first stage, and which will complete the downfall of capitalism, will prove to be the revolt of the colonial peoples against capitalism in the guise of imperialism".[54]
    In his notes for a second edition of What Is History?, Carr remarked on recent trends in historiography. Carr wrote about the rise of social history that:
    "Since the First World War the impact of the materialist conception of history on historical writings has been very strong. Indeed, one might say that all serious historical work done in this period has been moulded by its influence. The symptom of this change has been the replacement, in general esteem, of battles, diplomatic manoeuvres, constitutional arguments and political intrigues as the main topics of history—'political history' in the broad sense—by the study of economic factors, of social conditions, of statistics of population, of the rise and fall of classes. The increasing popularity of sociology has been another feature of the same development; the attempt has sometimes been made to treat history as a branch of sociology."[55]
    About the rise of social history as a subject at the expense of political history, Carr wrote:
    "Social history is the bedrock. To study the bedrock alone is not enough; and becomes tedious; perhaps this is what happened to Annales. But you can't dispense with it".[56]
    Through Carr himself had insisted that history was a social science, he regretted the decline of history as a discipline relative to the other social sciences, which he saw as a part of a conservative trend.[55] Carr wrote:
    "History is preoccupied with fundamental processes of change. If you are allergic to these processes, you abandon history and take cover in the social sciences. Today anthropology, sociology, etc, flourish. History is sick. But then our society too is sick".[55].
    Carr deplored the rise of Structuralism.[55]. Carr wrote there was the structuralist approach, which Carr called a "horizontal" way of understanding history "which analyses a society in terms of the functional or structural inter-relation of its parts".[55] Against it, there was what Carr called the "vertical" approach "which analyses it [society] in terms of where it has come from and where it is going".[55] Through Carr was willing to allow that a structural approach had some advantages, he wrote:
    "But it makes a lot of difference which attracts [the historian's] main emphasis and concern. This depends partly, no doubt, on his temperament, but largely on the environment in which he works. We live in a society which thinks of change chiefly as change for the worse, dreads it and prefers the "horizontal" view which calls only for minor adjustments".[57]
    Repeating his attack on the empirical approach to history, Carr claimed that those historians who claimed to be strict empiricists like Captain Stephen Roskill who took a just-the-facts approach would resemble a character named Funes in a short story by Jorge Luis Borges who never forgot anything he had seen or heard, so his memory was a "garbage heap".[58] Thus, Funes was "not very capable of thought" because "to think is forget differences, to generalize, to make abstractions".[58] In his introduction to the second edition of What is History? written shortly before his death in 1982, which was all that Carr had finished of the second edition, Carr proclaimed his belief that the western world was in a state of despair, writing:
    "The Cold War has resumed with redoubled intensity, bringing with it the threat of nuclear extinction. The delayed economic crisis has set in with a vengeance, ravaging the industrial countries and spreading the cancer of unemployment throughout the Western world [Carr is referring to the recession of the early 1980s]. Scarcely a country is now free from the antagonism of violence and terrorism. The revolt of the oil-producing states of the Middle East has brought a significant shift in power to the disadvantage of the Western industrial nations [a reference to the Arab oil shock of 1973-74 and the Iranian oil shock of 1979]. The "third world" has been transformed from a passive into a positive and disturbing factor in world affairs. In these conditions any expression of optimism has come to seem absurd".[58]
    Carr went on to declare his belief that the world was in fact getting better and wrote that it was only the West in decline, not the world, writing that:
    "My conclusion is that the current wave of skepticism and despair, which looks ahead to nothing but destruction and decay, and dismisses as absurd any belief in progress or any prospect of a further advance by the human race, is a form of elitism—the product of elite social groups whose security and whose privileges have been most conspicuously eroded by the crisis, and of elite countries whose once undisputed domination over the rest of the world has been shattered".[58]
    The claims that Carr made about the nature of historical work in What Is History? proved to be very controversial, and inspired Sir Geoffrey Elton to write his 1967 book The Practice of History in response, defending traditional historical methods. Elton criticized Carr for his "whimsical" distinction between the "historical facts" and the "facts of the past", arguing that it reflected "...an extraordinarily arrogant attitude both to the past and to the place of the historian studying it".[59] Though Elton praised Carr for rejecting the role of "accidents" in history, he maintained that Carr's philosophy of history was merely an attempt to provide a secular version of the medieval view of history as the working of God's master plan with "Progress" playing the part of God.[60] The British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper argued that Carr's dismissal of the "might-have-beens of history" reflected a fundamental lack of interest in examining historical causation.[61] Trevor-Roper asserted that examining possible alternative outcomes of history was far from being a "parlour-game" was rather an essential part of the historians' work.[62] In Trevor-Roper's opinion, only by looking at all possible outcomes and all sides could a historian properly understand the period under study, and those historians who adopted Carr's perspective of only seeking to understand the "winners" of history, and treating the outcome of a particular set of events as the only possible outcome were "bad historians".[63] In a review in 1963 in Historische Zeitschrift, Andreas Hillgruber wrote favourably of Carr's geistvoll-ironischer (ironically spirited) criticism of conservative, liberal and positivist historians.[64] A more positive assessment of What is History? came from the British philosopher W.H. Walsh who in a 1963 review endorsed Carr's theory of "facts of history" and "facts of the past", writing that it is not a "fact of history" that he had toast for breakfast that day.[65] Walsh went on to write that Carr was correct that historians did not stand above history, and were instead products of their own places and times, which in turn decided what "facts of the past" they determined into "facts of history".[65]
    The British historian Richard J. Evans credited What Is History? with causing a revolution in British historiography in the 1960s[66] The Australian historian Keith Windschuttle, a critic of Carr noted regretfully that What Is History? has proved to be one of the most influential books ever written about historiography, and that there were very few historians working in the English language since the 1960s who had not read What Is History?[67] The conservative British historian Andrew Roberts was to write in 2005 in defence of counter-factual history that: ‘anything that has been condemned by Carr, Thompson and Hobsbawm must have something to recommend it"[68]

    [edit] References

    1. ^ a b c d e f g h Huges-Warrington, p. 26
    2. ^ a b c d Carr, What Is History?, p. 12
    3. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 10;
    4. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 12–13
    5. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 22–25;
    6. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 23–24
    7. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 8–13
    8. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 30
    9. ^ a b c Carr, What Is History?, p. 16
    10. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 17
    11. ^ a b Carr, What Is History?, p. 18
    12. ^ a b Carr, What Is History?, pp. 18–19
    13. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 40–41
    14. ^ Trevor-Roper, p. 70
    15. ^ a b c d e f g h Huges-Warrington, p. 27
    16. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 94; Huges-Warrington, p. 27
    17. ^ a b Carr, What Is History?, p. 97
    18. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 99–101
    19. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 126
    20. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 126–127
    21. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 91–95; Huges-Warrington, p. 27
    22. ^ Huges-Warrington, pp. 26–27
    23. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 54–55
    24. ^ a b Carr, What Is History?, p. 46
    25. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 104
    26. ^ a b c d Carr, What Is History?, pp. 106–107
    27. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 107–108
    28. ^ a b Carr, E.H. What is History? London: Penguin, 1961, 1987 p. 98
    29. ^ a b Carr, E.H. What is History?, London: Penguin, 1961, 1987 p. 99
    30. ^ a b Carr, What Is History?, p. 43
    31. ^ Huges-Warrington, pp. 27–28
    32. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 136–138
    33. ^ a b c d e f g h Huges-Warrington, p. 28
    34. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 62
    35. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 63
    36. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 66–67
    37. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 68
    38. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 70–71
    39. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 74–75
    40. ^ a b c d e f g Huges-Warrington, p. 29
    41. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 76–77
    42. ^ a b Carr, What Is History?, p. 64; Laqueur, p. 126
    43. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 78; Huges-Warrington, p. 29
    44. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 82
    45. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 83
    46. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 80–81
    47. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 81
    48. ^ Huges-Warrington, p. 30
    49. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 152–156
    50. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 156
    51. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 179–181
    52. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 179–180
    53. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 181
    54. ^ Carr, What Is History?, pp. 181–182
    55. ^ a b c d e f Carr, What Is History?, p. 171
    56. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 170
    57. ^ Carr, What Is History?, p. 172
    58. ^ a b c d Carr, What Is History?, p. 159
    59. ^ Elton, Geoffrey The Practice of History, London: Methuen, 1967 pp. 56–57
    60. ^ Elton, Geoffrey The Practice of History, London: Methuen, 1967 p. 40
    61. ^ Trevor-Roper, pp. 72–73
    62. ^ Trevor-Roper, p. 73
    63. ^ Trevor-Roper, p. 76
    64. ^ Stephanson, Anders "The Lessons of What is History?" pp. 283–303 from E.H. Carr A Critical Appraisal ed. Michael Cox, Palgrave: London, 2000 p. 300
    65. ^ a b Walsh. W.H. Review of What Is History? pp. 587–588 from The English Historical Review, Volume 78, Issue # 308, July 1963
    66. ^ Evans, Richard J. (Autumn 2001). "The Two Faces of E.H. Carr". History In Focus. http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Whatishistory/evans10.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23. 
    67. ^ Windshuttle, Keith (Autumn 2001). "The Real Stuff of History". Sydney Line. http://www.sydneyline.com/Real%20Stuff%20of%20History.htm. Retrieved 2008-12-12. 
    68. ^ Žižek, Slavoj (August 18 2005). "Lenin Shot at Finland Station". London Review of Books. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n16/zize01_.html. Retrieved 2009-09-30.
     

Post a Comment

0 Comments
Post a Comment (0)

Coronavirus Articles


To Top