History Extension Debating Thread (ie. how to develop your "voice")

[ee1233]

Heyyyy guys! Don't mind this lonely Victorian history student crashing the thread our hums boards are like ghost towns. And I don't know how HSC extension history works so I'm just randomly throwing my opinion around.

Anyway, regarding the topic, I don't think anyone can be classified a historian. IMO, to be a historian you have to have some background in studying history, but most importantly you have to bring something new to the table while acknowledging different sides of debates and the fact that history is never 100% objective. I think that at our level, as high school history students, most of us are mainly studying the facts - who, what, when, where, how, and why. We're seeing history through the lenses of historians, but mostly none of us can bring in new ideas at this stage. Even when we write source analysis or essays, where we're asked to present our own ideas, we're still mainly drawing from what we've learnt in a textbook.

There's definitely a distinction between someone who is interested in history and someone who investigates every aspect of it. As students I think at the moment we're merely representative of those who have an interest in the field, and who knows? Maybe one day we could become historians. I definitely agree with you on the fact that we're on the pathway of being historians. However achieving such title takes time and effort and it's not something anyone can call themselves. In my opinion, I think that calling students like us historians discredits those who actually spend years of their lives in research. 'Historian' is a title that should be earned.

Awesome points! I agree with you in some regards, but I personally don't think that, as history students, we are always regurgitating information from historians. I think students, whether they know it or not, are questioning what they see and, to some degree, are creating an alternate way of thinking about the past!

However, I totally think that the title of 'historian' should be earned - it's one hell of a job! But then there's the question, where do we draw the line between a person who is merely 'interested' in history and someone who 'investigates every aspect of it'. Moreover, can we ever really investigate really aspect of history - history (at least to me) is infinite and subjective. So (I'm bringing out my postmodern side here lol), what is the difference between someone who knows just one 'fact' and someone who has been investigating the past their whole life if there is no such thing as an objective, ultimate truth. Is all out work equally as useless and ficticious, regardless of the effort we put in?

I'm sorry if none of that made sense... It's late and I'm tired - but this has been fun! 

[katie,rinos]

Hey guys,
I know that this debating thread has been inactive for a while but I came across something interesting on Twitter. So a history teacher has asked "Who can be a historian" and there have been a lot of interesting opinions in the thread. Australian historian Michael Molkentin's response caught my eye:

So what do you guys think? Are we history students historians? Do you need to contribute to historical knowledge to be a historian? (Hopefully, this Twitter thread also helps you come up with your own arguments/ideas for this coming exam)

Hey,

I think we could be considered historians if we are actively researching more about certain topics and aiming to draw our own conclusions and new interpretations about it (which most of the time we aren’t doing). I think that as students we are mostly ‘parroting’ what we have learnt from the HSC syllabus and the topics that our teachers have taught us. So, if I had written a modern essay in the exams, I wouldn’t be considered a historian because it isn’t a unique perspective (& it’s something that’s been written by thousands of other students).

I wouldn’t consider myself a historian (or even ‘on the path’ atm) because since HSC, I haven’t really actively tried to learn/research a lot more into history (except for music history assignments, which I don’t think really counts-unless you somehow come up with an incredibly new perspective).

I definitely don’t think we’re academic historians either. I didn’t read everything on the Holocaust for my major, and there were heaps of perspectives that I would’ve missed out, even just from abiding with the word limit. I also think that an academic historian would need to spend a lot more time on their works then we did on our major. I think you’d have to have some kind of degree in history to be an academic historian (maybe a PhD) and you’d need to be continuously working on your books/works. They should be professionals (e.g, I’d expect them to know how to properly footnote throughout their works and properly evaluate their sources) whereas we are only just learning these new research skills (and even a year might not be large enough to be competent in these skills to a high academic level).

Can I just say thank you guys for contributing to the debate thread Trying to revive the debate thread so we can discuss/debate/share ideas (considering how our exam is this coming Friday)

Thank you for trying to revive the thread!!  Feel free to pick my comments apart! 

[owidjaja]

Heyyyy guys! Don't mind this lonely Victorian history student crashing the thread our hums boards are like ghost towns. And I don't know how HSC extension history works so I'm just randomly throwing my opinion around.

Welcome fellow Victorian! Great seeing you here

Anyway, regarding the topic, I don't think anyone can be classified a historian. IMO, to be a historian you have to have some background in studying history, but most importantly you have to bring something new to the table while acknowledging different sides of debates and the fact that history is never 100% objective. I think that at our level, as high school history students, most of us are mainly studying the facts - who, what, when, where, how, and why. We're seeing history through the lenses of historians, but mostly none of us can bring in new ideas at this stage. Even when we write source analysis or essays, where we're asked to present our own ideas, we're still mainly drawing from what we've learnt in a textbook.

I would agree with you, to a partial extent. I agree with the fact that the title 'historian' shouldn't be used loosely (which is what you go into in the next paragraph) but I'm not sure if I agree with you when it comes to regurgitation. I think history syllabuses are limited but it doesn't stop history students from researching something they're interested in and bring in a new perspective. For example, a lot of people in my Modern class said that Germany caused WW1. I personally think that all the countries caused WW1. Although the syllabus doesn't really touch on historiography (maybe in the Personality section)- unless you're doing History Extension- you're still given room to argue a new idea. I remember one of the HSC markers Phil Mundy saying in his lecture that HSC markers love unique theses. Personally, I wouldn't be brave enough to argue a completely new idea if it's gonna put me in a disadvantaged place since some HSC markers are more biased than others, but it is encouraging that one marker is encouraging us to bring new ideas to the table.

But you do have an excellent argument here- even though teachers try to encourage us to bring new ideas, we're always resorting to the 'easier' perspective.

Awesome points! I agree with you in some regards, but I personally don't think that, as history students, we are always regurgitating information from historians. I think students, whether they know it or not, are questioning what they see and, to some degree, are creating an alternate way of thinking about the past!

I think you bring an excellent point! Before we knew about the idea of counterfactual history, a lot of people tend to ask 'what if' questions. These days, that's an arguably legitimate topic to study.

I think we could be considered historians if we are actively researching more about certain topics and aiming to draw our own conclusions and new interpretations about it (which most of the time we aren’t doing). I think that as students we are mostly ‘parroting’ what we have learnt from the HSC syllabus and the topics that our teachers have taught us. So, if I had written a modern essay in the exams, I wouldn’t be considered a historian because it isn’t a unique perspective (& it’s something that’s been written by thousands of other students).

And I agree with you here! I would also add that if we're researching and investigating the various sides/versions of the past. As HSC students, we don't have the time to go through all the evidence and come up with our own judgements afterwards (Ranke is rolling in his grave lol).

I definitely don’t think we’re academic historians either. I didn’t read everything on the Holocaust for my major, and there were heaps of perspectives that I would’ve missed out, even just from abiding with the word limit. I also think that an academic historian would need to spend a lot more time on their works then we did on our major. I think you’d have to have some kind of degree in history to be an academic historian (maybe a PhD) and you’d need to be continuously working on your books/works. They should be professionals (e.g, I’d expect them to know how to properly footnote throughout their works and properly evaluate their sources) whereas we are only just learning these new research skills (and even a year might not be large enough to be competent in these skills to a high academic level).

That's a great point you brought up here! I totally forgot about word limits and time constraints on our Major Works. And that is true, word limits are very annoying because we're not including more perspectives that we could've discussed. As for time constraints, I think that's an interesting thing you bring up because we always constantly talk about how new evidence tends to show up as time passes by. But if we're constantly finding new evidence in the future, then is there any point in producing history now when we know that we haven't completely found all the evidence? But is there such thing as discovering all of the evidence? (I'm slowly spiralling lol)

Thank you for trying to revive the thread!!  Feel free to pick my comments apart! 

Great seeing you here Katie! You certainly brought up new points I didn't consider

[owidjaja]

Hey there,

I have another historiography debate: I was watching The Film Theorist's video on How to Win Oscar Best Picture. You don't have to watch the whole video but he brings up an interesting point. To summarise, the most common ways you can win a Best Picture is to either make a film about a true story or about actors/acting because most of the members of the Academy Awards are men, won an Oscar and have an average age of 62. This was something I noticed (considering how much of an Oscar fan I am). There are so many Best Picture nominees/winners I can list: The Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, The King Speech etc.

My question is: considering how much attention biopics get during Oscar season, do you think Hollywood is exploiting history? Is it even considered ethical?

[imogen.b]

(just realised I posted this on the question forum instead of the debating thread, oops!)
Hey everyone,

I was reading the 2016 Question 1 source, and was wondering what you all thought of it? How do you think the changing nature of 'historical evidence' has influenced the way history is constructed today, or even the way earlier historians constructed their history?

[imogen.b]

Hey there,

I have another historiography debate: I was watching The Film Theorist's video on How to Win Oscar Best Picture. You don't have to watch the whole video but he brings up an interesting point. To summarise, the most common ways you can win a Best Picture is to either make a film about a true story or about actors/acting because most of the members of the Academy Awards are men, won an Oscar and have an average age of 62. This was something I noticed (considering how much of an Oscar fan I am). There are so many Best Picture nominees/winners I can list: The Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, The King Speech etc.

My question is: considering how much attention biopics get during Oscar season, do you think Hollywood is exploiting history? Is it even considered ethical?

I haven't seen Dunkirk and can't remember much of the King's Speech, but I've studied a bit of The Darkest Hour for my Churchill case study. I think that films play a large role in glorifying history or historical figures, which impacts the public perception of said history. For example, the Darkest Hour portrays Churchill as a powerful figure who was victimised by the rest of the British government in the interwar period, but paints him as the only man who truly recognised the evils and threat of Nazi Germany. In actual fact, Churchill was isolated by the government in the interwar period as a result of his (pretty racist) stance on Indian home rule, which isn't discussed in the movie (that I can remember anyway).

I think that there definitely is an element of exploitation of history in film, which is probably more evident in the less historically accurate films than the better-researched ones, but if the purpose of these films is entertainment then there is always going to be some element of dramatisation to the actual events. It might not be ethical (the film The Death of Stalin comes to mind, which is hilarious in its portrayal of the chaotic struggle for power in post-Stalin Soviet Union, but is prooooobably not 100% accurate), but then again, even 'conventional' histories can be unethical in their construction of history as well.

[ameenab]

Hey guys!! So I just wanted to share my opinions on some of the issues being discussed. It's been really interesting to read all the different opinions on historical points of contention, I feel like by reading what other people think it's made it much easier for me to be like "Oh yeah that makes heaps of sense, I agree with that" or to be "I see where you're coming from but I kinda disagree with that point." So basically here are my views on a few of the debates-

Historical Objectivity
Obviously, this is a big one and makes an appearance in a lot of the past exams I've been going through. Personally, I agree with the idea that history can never be objective, and as there is a multitude of biases that just pile up in any historical work- the bias of the sources used, the bias of the historian themselves- but I do think they historians should strive to produce the most objective truth possible. I think the idea of Carr that "history is interpretation" is really resonant because really the study of the history is a way of looking at past events using a number of different perspectives to grasp some idea of what occurred, but in my opinion the main purpose of history is to learn from previous societies/ways of thinking and so working around the plethora of perspectives is integral to establishing some sort of basis for historical facts. I say "historical facts" and not objective facts, because whilst a complete version of the truth is unattainable, there is some a number of historical facts we can't dispute as some of you have discussed (like the Holocaust, Stolen Generation etc.) I feel like my view kind aligns with Richard Evans (the guy that worked on the Irving vs Lipstadt case) to an extent because he really pushed for the fact that historians need to find some mutual ground and establish facts of history that can't be refuted.

Historical Fiction
I actually did my project on this, looking at the television show The Tudors and discussing whether it had a place in the 21st century. Now for any of you who have watched The Tudors, you'll know that whilst its a good watch, it completely butchers the reign of King Henry VIII. In my essay, I ended up arguing that it did have a place in the historical discipline though, because I reckon that history is a public discipline and thus requires recognition in order to maintain its esteem. Obviously, most of the general public aren't going to read complex history books for fun (unlike most of us I'm guessing) but I think that historical fiction generates an interest in people that is so vital in increasing historical awareness. The way I see it, if someone watches a historical fiction show like The Tudors, they'll either enjoy it and move on with some (admittedly skewed) extra knowledge about the Tudor period or they'll find a passion for the era and do their own research into the details of historical accuracy, and viola! we have another fellow history buff. I know there are obviously detriments to portraying incorrect information, but I feel like history is losing its place a bit in our society, and historical fiction is a way (not a perfect one but a way) in regenerating that interest.

Wow even if nobody replies to this thread, it's been really nice to just put all the ideas in my head and into actual tangible words aha. Goodluck to all the extension history students this year!

[imogen.b]

Hey guys!! So I just wanted to share my opinions on some of the issues being discussed. It's been really interesting to read all the different opinions on historical points of contention, I feel like by reading what other people think it's made it much easier for me to be like "Oh yeah that makes heaps of sense, I agree with that" or to be "I see where you're coming from but I kinda disagree with that point." So basically here are my views on a few of the debates-

Historical Objectivity
Obviously, this is a big one and makes an appearance in a lot of the past exams I've been going through. Personally, I agree with the idea that history can never be objective, and as there is a multitude of biases that just pile up in any historical work- the bias of the sources used, the bias of the historian themselves- but I do think they historians should strive to produce the most objective truth possible. I think the idea of Carr that "history is interpretation" is really resonant because really the study of the history is a way of looking at past events using a number of different perspectives to grasp some idea of what occurred, but in my opinion the main purpose of history is to learn from previous societies/ways of thinking and so working around the plethora of perspectives is integral to establishing some sort of basis for historical facts. I say "historical facts" and not objective facts, because whilst a complete version of the truth is unattainable, there is some a number of historical facts we can't dispute as some of you have discussed (like the Holocaust, Stolen Generation etc.) I feel like my view kind aligns with Richard Evans (the guy that worked on the Irving vs Lipstadt case) to an extent because he really pushed for the fact that historians need to find some mutual ground and establish facts of history that can't be refuted.

Historical Fiction
I actually did my project on this, looking at the television show The Tudors and discussing whether it had a place in the 21st century. Now for any of you who have watched The Tudors, you'll know that whilst its a good watch, it completely butchers the reign of King Henry VIII. In my essay, I ended up arguing that it did have a place in the historical discipline though, because I reckon that history is a public discipline and thus requires recognition in order to maintain its esteem. Obviously, most of the general public aren't going to read complex history books for fun (unlike most of us I'm guessing) but I think that historical fiction generates an interest in people that is so vital in increasing historical awareness. The way I see it, if someone watches a historical fiction show like The Tudors, they'll either enjoy it and move on with some (admittedly skewed) extra knowledge about the Tudor period or they'll find a passion for the era and do their own research into the details of historical accuracy, and viola! we have another fellow history buff. I know there are obviously detriments to portraying incorrect information, but I feel like history is losing its place a bit in our society, and historical fiction is a way (not a perfect one but a way) in regenerating that interest.

Wow even if nobody replies to this thread, it's been really nice to just put all the ideas in my head and into actual tangible words aha. Goodluck to all the extension history students this year!

I think what you said about historical fiction as entertainment [that people will "either enjoy it and move on with some (admittedly skewed) extra knowledge about the Tudor period or they'll find a passion for the era and do their own research into the details of historical accuracy"] is true, and again shows the significant role of history in modern society. Even though history can cause socio-political / ideological conflicts, I think that, more broadly, the purpose of history as a discipline is to learn and inform about the past. I know that when I was reading Ken Follett's Century trilogy, I learned a lot about lesser known figures or events in history, which was both entertaining to read as a fiction text, and also led me to investigate further into the events that I did not know about.

Good luck to you on Friday! 

[owidjaja]

Hey guys,

Since we just had the History Extension lecture yesterday, I wanted to revive this thread so the 2019 Class can have a go at developing their voice!

Anyway, Brazil's oldest science museum got burned down last year. I remember seeing a whole bunch of historians tweeting about it (from what I recall, there was even a hashtag circulating). I guess the most memorable thing about this article was this quote:

Museums are living, breathing repositories of who we are and where we’ve come from, and the world around us.

While I do think museums play a significant role in our cultural heritage, let's take this quote to a new level. Is it ethical for museums to keep cultural artefacts? Is it right for them to make money off other cultural artefacts?

[Vee__]

That's definitely a tough question because I do understand that someone who is very interested or passionate about a topic deserves to have artifacts from that era or event but at the same time I believe this would result in capitalist intentions of the museum and therefore diminish the importance that these artifacts even have.
Personally, I believe that artifacts need to be stored in a museum as they are so priceless that the public should be able to see them and understand our past through these artifacts. I don't think it's ethical for museums to be making profit out of artifacts when they are a piece of what has made our society what it is today. We are products of our history and artifacts are a way for us to understand this.

[owidjaja]

Hey guys,

It's been awhile since we've had a topic to debate about but I stumbled on an interesting video a few days ago. In March this year, Tamara Lanier filed a lawsuit against Harvard University for owning a 169 year old image of a slave. Lanier stated that the slave in the photo is her great-great-great grandfather and wants Harvard to turn in all of their images, and also argues that this is proof that Harvard University became the wealthy university we know today because of its use of slavery. This video perfectly summarises the lawsuit:

So, a few questions: Who is the rightful owner of the photo? Where do you think the photo belongs? Is it right for Lanier to demand for reparations over something that happened over 100 years ago? If we're going to introduce reparations to excluded groups, how far back do we have to go since a lot of countries do have a long history of brutalities, wars and genocides?

[ameliabrennan5]

Assess the importance of historical recounts on screen (1 paragraph)

Hayden White an American historian throughout the 20th century, coined the term historiophity, “the representation of history and our thoughts about it in visual images and filmic discourse.” This is a demonstration of how film in history has penetrated the discipline, to become a not-so-widely accepted practice. Films want to convince an audience and persuade them into thinking that it is reality, this is achieved by having bits and pieces stuck together in accordance with an abundance of codes that substantiate “cinematic realism”. These ‘bits and pieces’ undergo great lengths of manipulation to make the audience feel a sense of familiarity. As Robert A.Rosentone explains that historical film is underpinned by the “notion of the screen as a window onto a realistic world,” and that one convention of standard historical film is that film dramatizes and exploits emotions. This then brings into question whether funk adds to our understanding of the past by making us feel immediately and deeply about either a specific historical person, event or situation/ Through this the deemed post-literate world we live in is being more widely exposed to history and are making connections to them, which would be a metaphorical ‘win’ for historians. However, where historians are troubled is by the false invention of historical film.



What are people's opinions of historical film?