Historians to link to 'Popular vs Academic' History?

[palebluedot]

Hi everyone!

I was just wonering if someone can please break down - realllyyy simplyy - what is the difference between popular and academic history? (i sort of have a jist of it but im not very confident in this debate)

Also: for popular history - what historians could i link to this?

Thanks!

[katie,rinos]

Hi everyone!

I was just wonering if someone can please break down - realllyyy simplyy - what is the difference between popular and academic history? (i sort of have a jist of it but im not very confident in this debate)

Also: for popular history - what historians could i link to this?

Thanks!

Public history is “forms of historical representation which are produced outside the academy, either directly addressing a large general audience, or for public, often governmental, purposes” (Curthoys and Hamilton, p8).

It’s history that is written for the general public (is accessible/understandable to everyone) and they beleive that anybody can be a historian (e.g you don’t need a uni history degree). Forms of public history include film, radio, television, historical sites, commemorations, re-enactments and museums. Popular history is normally constructed as a group/collective method.

However, academic history is written by people who have degrees (mainly PHDs) in history and therefore have a lot of knowledge in the subject. It isn’t written for the general public and mainly takes the form of academic books/journals.

For popular history my class looked at the Australian debate on the treatment of Aboriginal people, between the ‘three cheers view of history’ (white people have done a pretty good job on balance) and the ‘Black arm band view’ (white people messed up and treated Aborigines poorly). This was seen mainly through the media and political figures.

Hope this helps!!