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

[katie,rinos]

Hey, This is a really cool idea. Not sure if I’m right but this is what I think:
Can history be objective?
I believe that history can never be 100% objective as historians are always affected by their personal beliefs, values and opinions on issues. Sources that were made in the past can often be biased and as historians can only write based on past sources (especially when writing about ancient history), they can never be truly objective. Most historians begin their research with a question in mind, and therefore when choosing their sources, they are influenced by this prior question and pre-imagined hypothesis.

The Ancient Historians didn’t even know what source analysis was, and couldn’t be objective as it wasn’t even thought about yet. Throughout history, most historians have strived for objectivity but even Von Ranke (the father of scientific history) was subjective as he aimed to find the signature of God through history. Macaulay’s teleological approach to history wished to show how English history was progressing and improving. Therefore, he was influenced by these ideas while conducting his research and writing his works. The school of Public history is subjective as they are often funded by the government and provide views in the context of current political debates. Post Modernists believe that there is no real truth and rarely use footnotes. One historian (could have been schama-not sure) that we studied in class mixed narratives with his histories as he believed that if there was no truth it didn’t really matter if everything was historically correct. Obviously this would be greatly subjective. Therefore, I don’t really believe that history can ever be objective, no matter how hard a historian may try.

My Opinion on Historical Fiction
I actually used to really love it but I haven’t read a lot in ages. I’m doing the Book Thief as one of my related texts for English and focussing on the Holocaust for my history extension major, and I really like the book. I also love the book War Horse by Micheal Morpurgo which is based off WW1 and has a movie adaptation. I read the YA book Gemina last holidays and it mentioned the battle of Thermopylae which was really cool when I got to class the next term and we were talking about it in Sparta. However, I could understand how it could be really annoying if it isn’t historically accurate or you couldn’t tell between fact and fiction. I found that especially when I was younger, this was a lot easier for me to read about history then reading a long, boring history book.

I think I might do the other two questions later. Thanks, Susie. This will actually be really good help for my trials coming up.

[sudodds]

Hey, This is a really cool idea. Not sure if I’m right but this is what I think:

So glad you think so!! And well, as a history extension student you should know that "right" is a very subjective term Never doubt your opinion - seek to validate it further, and assess new evidence (as you are doing in this thread!) - but never doubt it

Can history be objective?
I believe that history can never be 100% objective as historians are always affected by their personal beliefs, values and opinions on issues. Sources that were made in the past can often be biased and as historians can only write based on past sources (especially when writing about ancient history), they can never be truly objective.

I'd go as far as to suggest that ALL sources from the past are "biased" (though just a technical thing - I suggest being more specific about 'bias' in your essays - ideological adherence, personal prejudice, political agenda works better!). As Keith Jenkins states, as humans we are essentially "ideologically positioned workers" - everything that we do is inherently motivated by ideology. If you want to go into this further, I suggest watching this short clip from Slavoj Zizek's 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology' (I'd actually recommend watching the whole thing! Such a mindfuck, but sooooo interesting). He goes into how our whole perception of reality is impacted by ideology, which in turn will have a critical impact upon not only the way historical actors have produced sources, but historical producers have produced history!

Furthermore, I think another aspect that is important to consider is that not only are the sources that we have inherently ideological, personal and political, but for a huge amount of history - white, male and privileged! Not even commenting on todays socio-cultural climate in regards to class, race and gender, it is undeniable that throughout history rich, white men were all that anyone seemed to care about, and by extension wrote about. Information on the lower classes, women or other minorities just wasn't considered important enough to record - and thus history "forgot" about them! As John Vincent states "history is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts... no evidence, no history. Imperfect evidence, imperfect history". As history is 'technically' about evidence (that in itself is definitely up for debate, but I'll leave it for now ), if we are missing evidence because no one bothered to keep it alive, then how is it possible to write an objective history?

Most historians begin their research with a question in mind, and therefore when choosing their sources, they are influenced by this prior question and pre-imagined hypothesis.

DEFINITELY! If you haven't read EH Carr's 'What is History?' I suggest giving it a go - super short read, but sooooo informative (and a great source to incorporate in the Section I of the exam!) - he talks about this within the first chapter I think, with his fishing analogy Essentially what he is saying is that historians choose a particular area (historical period), then a lake within that area (their focus). They then hop into a boat (their investigation), travelling towards a particular spot in the lake (their hypothesis). They get out their rod, and put a particular bait on the end of it (research methodology), catching and eating particular fish (sources that suit their hypothesis), which for the most part ignoring the undesirable ones.
 

The Ancient Historians didn’t even know what source analysis was, and couldn’t be objective as it wasn’t even thought about yet.

That's a bit harsh! And I'm not sure I agree with you here (though I'm sure that is a very common misconception!). The Ancient Historians definitely knew the importance of sources, and how critical they were to investigation. Herodotus is the "father of history" for a reason! Yeah, he sometimes made up sources (like when he suggested that he spoke to a giant...), HOWEVER the fact that he felt the need to make up sources suggests that he understood how critical sources were to the study of history - they are what differentiates history from historical fiction in many ways. One of his most famous quotes even alludes to this: "I am bound to tell what I am told, but not in every case to believe it."

If you look at the work of Herodotus (and many other Ancient historians), they reference sources throughout their works. For example, Cassius Dio references the now long lost diaries of Agrippina the Younger in his account of her life. Some ancient historians even assess the reliability of their sources! Both Tacitus and Suetonius (though the latter is not technically a historian - rather a biographer) are examples of this.

Overall I think I support Mary Beard's point of view - "It is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors."

Throughout history, most historians have strived for objectivity but even Von Ranke (the father of scientific history) was subjective as he aimed to find the signature of God through history. Macaulay’s teleological approach to history wished to show how English history was progressing and improving. Therefore, he was influenced by these ideas while conducting his research and writing his works. The school of Public history is subjective as they are often funded by the government and provide views in the context of current political debates.

Agree with everything here Interesting fact though - Despite the fact that Von Ranke has basically become the most famous empiricist (and don't get me wrong - he was an empiricist), his most famous quote, that he was writing about the past "as it actually was", is most likely a mistranslation of German! It is believed that he actually said "as it essentially was" - which is VERY different. You could also add that public history is also often written for entertainment, and to "make money" - thus are more likely to present a more dramatic account of events (re. the entire work of Bill O'Reilly, who himself even admits that if you write exciting history you can sell a lot of copies and have movies made about them - as he has for many of his historical works).

Post Modernists believe that there is no real truth and rarely use footnotes.

This isn't just a fault of postmodernists (and not even all postmodernist!) - A lot of popular/public historians do the same thing. Some publishing houses consider too many footnotes to distract the reader, which puts off consumers from purchasing the book, so historians are instructed to limit their use of them, or only use them for menial background detail (for example Bill O'Reilly uses footnotes to tell us the actual hair colour of Ronald Reagan... fun fact my 2500 word major work had more footnotes than an entire Bill O'Reilly work).  I also think that you need to remember that there aren't many postmodernist historians, more so postmodernist historiographers. Postmodernists typically don't write history (because as you said, they don't believe that there is one, accurate portrayal), but more so analyse and criticise the constructions of other histories. Thus as their work is more so theory based, a theory they themselves have developed, it is understandable that they have comparatively less sources.

One historian (could have been schama-not sure) that we studied in class mixed narratives with his histories as he believed that if there was no truth it didn’t really matter if everything was historically correct.

Interesting point! And yes that was Simon Schama who did that Definitely that would impact upon the factual reliability, however do you think the fact that he disclosed this makes a difference?

Obviously this would be greatly subjective. Therefore, I don’t really believe that history can ever be objective, no matter how hard a historian may try.

Overall I agree with this, and you make some awesome points Well done! Now onto the next topic

My Opinion on Historical Fiction
I actually used to really love it but I haven’t read a lot in ages. I’m doing the Book Thief as one of my related texts for English and focussing on the Holocaust for my history extension major, and I really like the book.

It is a great book Though I'm still not a fan of historical fiction as a genre, I can definitely appreciate the Book Thief (also awesome related text idea btw ). Also a lot of really interesting historiographical issues and concerns with the history of the Holocaust! Sounds like a super interesting major work topic! Super interested to hear more about your thesis - did you have a look at David Irving and the whole concept of 'Holocaust Denial'? Really demonstrates the slippery slope of postmodernism!

I also love the book War Horse by Micheal Morpurgo which is based off WW1 and has a movie adaptation. I read the YA book Gemina last holidays and it mentioned the battle of Thermopylae which was really cool when I got to class the next term and we were talking about it in Sparta.

Interesting! I haven't watched/read either of those (however I have heard of War Horse - that was the one with Tom Hiddleston right? Wasn't the horse nominated for an Oscar?). I will admit, the one thing that I do like about historical fiction is that if you have already studied the period it becomes so much more immersive as a narrative (but then that one blatant historical inaccuracy pops up and then I'm just pissed off hahaha)

However, I could understand how it could be really annoying if it isn’t historically accurate or you couldn’t tell between fact and fiction. I found that especially when I was younger, this was a lot easier for me to read about history then reading a long, boring history book.

I think I maybe mentioned this earlier in response to this, but I'll say it again anyway - I can definitely appreciate the merit of historical fiction in that it "opens" up the world of history to people in a more accessible format! However I just think that sometimes, it can do more harm than good as it opens them up to a false narrative. Disney's 'Pocahontas' is a good example of this - kids are being fed a highly romanticised version of events, which clouds the significance of the events and personalities themselves (plus just the portrayal of a romance between Pocahontas and her alleged rapist is pretty gross... As Robert Eaglestaff, principal of the American Indian Heritage School in Seattle states: ""It's like trying to teach about the Holocaust and putting in a nice story about Anne Frank falling in love with a German officer ... You can't pretend everything was O.K. between the Germans and the Jews.")

I think I might do the other two questions later. Thanks, Susie. This will actually be really good help for my trials coming up.

AWESOME! Looking forward to it Katie Thanks so much for sharing your opinions so far, can't wait to hear the rest of them

[katie,rinos]

I'd go as far as to suggest that ALL sources from the past are "biased" (though just a technical thing - I suggest being more specific about 'bias' in your essays - ideological adherence, personal prejudice, political agenda works better!). As Keith Jenkins states, as humans we are essentially "ideologically positioned workers" - everything that we do is inherently motivated by ideology. If you want to go into this further, I suggest watching this short clip from Slavoj Zizek's 'The Pervert's Guide to Ideology' (I'd actually recommend watching the whole thing! Such a mindfuck, but sooooo interesting). He goes into how our whole perception of reality is impacted by ideology, which in turn will have a critical impact upon not only the way historical actors have produced sources, but historical producers have produced history!

I just watched the video it was so interesting and my mind is blown. I might try to watch the whole thing in the holidays.

Furthermore, I think another aspect that is important to consider is that not only are the sources that we have inherently ideological, personal and political, but for a huge amount of history - white, male and privileged! Not even commenting on todays socio-cultural climate in regards to class, race and gender, it is undeniable that throughout history rich, white men were all that anyone seemed to care about, and by extension wrote about. Information on the lower classes, women or other minorities just wasn't considered important enough to record - and thus history "forgot" about them!

I completely forgot about this. We were commenting in History Extension the other day about how the post modernists (and indeed most of our What is History historians) and all our Kennedy historians are all white, middle aged men.

DEFINITELY! If you haven't read EH Carr's 'What is History?' I suggest giving it a go - super short read, but sooooo informative (and a great source to incorporate in the Section I of the exam!) - he talks about this within the first chapter I think, with his fishing analogy Essentially what he is saying is that historians choose a particular area (historical period), then a lake within that area (their focus). They then hop into a boat (their investigation), travelling towards a particular spot in the lake (their hypothesis). They get out their rod, and put a particular bait on the end of it (research methodology), catching and eating particular fish (sources that suit their hypothesis), which for the most part ignoring the undesirable ones.

We studied EH Carr for the What is History? section, towards the start of the year. I might try and read it again though to refresh it. Your description of the fishmonger analogy is really good. Thanks

That's a bit harsh! And I'm not sure I agree with you here (though I'm sure that is a very common misconception!). The Ancient Historians definitely knew the importance of sources, and how critical they were to investigation. Herodotus is the "father of history" for a reason! Yeah, he sometimes made up sources (like when he suggested that he spoke to a giant...), HOWEVER the fact that he felt the need to make up sources suggests that he understood how critical sources were to the study of history - they are what differentiates history from historical fiction in many ways. One of his most famous quotes even alludes to this: "I am bound to tell what I am told, but not in every case to believe it."

If you look at the work of Herodotus (and many other Ancient historians), they reference sources throughout their works. For example, Cassius Dio references the now long lost diaries of Agrippina the Younger in his account of her life. Some ancient historians even assess the reliability of their sources! Both Tacitus and Suetonius (though the latter is not technically a historian - rather a biographer) are examples of this.

Overall I think I support Mary Beard's point of view - "It is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors."

Yeah, I agree with you on this. I just always thought that they didn't know how to be objective, however if the historian understand how critical sources were, referenced them and assessed them, they are trying to be objective. Do you believe Suetonius was trying to be objective, as my class has always been told to be careful of his bias. My Ancient teacher loves Mary Beard and I haven't heard of this quote before, but it might be useful for an essay.

Agree with everything here Interesting fact though - Despite the fact that Von Ranke has basically become the most famous empiricist (and don't get me wrong - he was an empiricist), his most famous quote, that he was writing about the past "as it actually was", is most likely a mistranslation of German! It is believed that he actually said "as it essentially was" - which is VERY different. You could also add that public history is also often written for entertainment, and to "make money" - thus are more likely to present a more dramatic account of events (re. the entire work of Bill O'Reilly, who himself even admits that if you write exciting history you can sell a lot of copies and have movies made about them - as he has for many of his historical works).
This isn't just a fault of postmodernists (and not even all postmodernist!) - A lot of popular/public historians do the same thing. Some publishing houses consider too many footnotes to distract the reader, which puts off consumers from purchasing the book, so historians are instructed to limit their use of them, or only use them for menial background detail (for example Bill O'Reilly uses footnotes to tell us the actual hair colour of Ronald Reagan... fun fact my 2500 word major work had more footnotes than an entire Bill O'Reilly work).  I also think that you need to remember that there aren't many postmodernist historians, more so postmodernist historiographers. Postmodernists typically don't write history (because as you said, they don't believe that there is one, accurate portrayal), but more so analyse and criticise the constructions of other histories. Thus as their work is more so theory based, a theory they themselves have developed, it is understandable that they have comparatively less sources.

Really interesting ideas. I didn't know that some historians were told to limit their footnotes. . How many footnotes did you have-I ended up with 23.  I didn't really realise that the Post Modernists were mainly historiographers but it makes sense.

Interesting point! And yes that was Simon Schama who did that Definitely that would impact upon the factual reliability, however do you think the fact that he disclosed this makes a difference?

Yeah,the fact that he told people that there were narratives mixed in, would have made a huge difference as his audience wouldn't believe it all to be fact.

[katie,rinos]

It is a great book Though I'm still not a fan of historical fiction as a genre, I can definitely appreciate the Book Thief (also awesome related text idea btw ). Also a lot of really interesting historiographical issues and concerns with the history of the Holocaust! Sounds like a super interesting major work topic! Super interested to hear more about your thesis - did you have a look at David Irving and the whole concept of 'Holocaust Denial'? Really demonstrates the slippery slope of postmodernism!

It's such a good related text for English AOS. No, I didn't actually do this question. I ended up changing my question about three times. Initially it was “Assess how perspectives of the Jewish people of the Holocaust have changed over time through media representations?” (hence the Book Thief) -but obviously it was way too broad. I ended up doing "Assess the Goldhagen v. Browning debate, focussing on why the German people of police battalion 101 were involved in the murder of the Jewish people." (I focussed on the historians context, methodology and how this affected their interpretations. It was really interesting )

Interesting! I haven't watched/read either of those (however I have heard of War Horse - that was the one with Tom Hiddleston right? Wasn't the horse nominated for an Oscar?). I will admit, the one thing that I do like about historical fiction is that if you have already studied the period it becomes so much more immersive as a narrative (but then that one blatant historical inaccuracy pops up and then I'm just pissed off hahaha)

Yeah, it did have Tom Hiddleston. I don't know if the horse was nominated for an oscar. Would be cool if it was. I haven't read a lot of historical fiction since starting history extension so I don't really know how much it would affect me now. It's great once you have actually studied the history behind it and then read the books.

However I just think that sometimes, it can do more harm than good as it opens them up to a false narrative. Disney's 'Pocahontas' is a good example of this - kids are being fed a highly romanticised version of events, which clouds the significance of the events and personalities themselves (plus just the portrayal of a romance between Pocahontas and her alleged rapist is pretty gross... As Robert Eaglestaff, principal of the American Indian Heritage School in Seattle states: ""It's like trying to teach about the Holocaust and putting in a nice story about Anne Frank falling in love with a German officer ... You can't pretend everything was O.K. between the Germans and the Jews.")

I've never seen Pocahontas before (one of the only Disney movies I haven't seen). But a romance between her and a rapist is gross/wrong. I understand the Holocaust example as well. It's like, Historical fiction can be really good sometimes but it needs barriers and to be fairly accurate to the societies that it is portraying. You just can't have just have false narratives like that.

AWESOME! Looking forward to it Katie Thanks so much for sharing your opinions so far, can't wait to hear the rest of them

I'll do the other's later on in the week. Thanks Susie , I'm also going to your Ancient lecture in the holidays so i'm really excited about that!!

[sudodds]

I just watched the video it was so interesting and my mind is blown. I might try to watch the whole thing in the holidays.

So glad you found it interesting! Zizek is a beast - also a great source to use for your essays as well Very very interesting stuff. If you have a watch in the holidays make sure to check back here if you have any questions or opinions that you'd like to discuss!

I completely forgot about this. We were commenting in History Extension the other day about how the post modernists (and indeed most of our What is History historians) and all our Kennedy historians are all white, middle aged men.

There's actually a name for this type of history, known as "Big Men History" or the "Top Down Approach"! It's basically the antithesis of social history and the bottom up approach

We studied EH Carr for the What is History? section, towards the start of the year. I might try and read it again though to refresh it. Your description of the fishmonger analogy is really good. Thanks

'What is History?' really is the quintessential history extension text in my opinion - Carr is an authority on historiography. That book has absolutely everything you need - highly recommended And no worries!

Yeah, I agree with you on this. I just always thought that they didn't know how to be objective, however if the historian understand how critical sources were, referenced them and assessed them, they are trying to be objective. Do you believe Suetonius was trying to be objective, as my class has always been told to be careful of his bias. My Ancient teacher loves Mary Beard and I haven't heard of this quote before, but it might be useful for an essay.

See I'm not really sure anyone knows how to be objective - that's the thing. As you said before, even Von Ranke, and those who were writing after the dawn of the more "scientific" approach to history, weren't totally objective. However, I do think that in essence a lot of (though not all) historians strive towards objectivity - and that includes the Ancient Historians. Will they ever reach it - no, but I don't think that the Ancient Historians saw themselves as writing fiction, and thus believed that they were at the very least writing some form of the truth.

In terms of Suetonius, you definitely want to be careful when analysing the reliability of his (as you should be with all historians). Many have suggested that Suetonius' works are basically Ancient gossip magazines, and there is definitely merit to that interpretation. I don't think either Suetonius or Tacitus aimed to write objectively - both had a very particular purpose for the way in which they presented their interpretations of the Julio-Claudians - namely to vicariously criticise the regime they lived under, without directly criticising the current rulers (and getting into trouble. It's been a while since I read Suetonius, however if I remember correctly he often presents information as "alleged" - he doesn't present all his accounts as straight fact, but suggests that this is what he has heard from sources. That is why I think that, though their aims may not have been objectivity, source analysis was still a key aspect of their histories

Really interesting ideas. I didn't know that some historians were told to limit their footnotes. . How many footnotes did you have-I ended up with 23.  I didn't really realise that the Post Modernists were mainly historiographers but it makes sense.

I had around 85 footnotes (don't be alarmed though at the drastic difference, the girl that came 1st in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize had about 30 so going crazy like me is defs not a requirement to do well ). I was really meticulous about my referencing, because the topic I was doing was one that was hardly ever discussed, which meant I couldn't rely on a markers previous knowledge of the issue - thus I needed to back up pretty much every point that I made. Plus I used footnotes to clarify things such as definitions, etc. etc.

Yeah,the fact that he told people that there were narratives mixed in, would have made a huge difference as his audience wouldn't believe it all to be fact.

I agree I think if a historian doesn't claim objectivity, and acknowledges their failings then it is acceptable. When historians start to suggest that they know the truth completely I get really skeptical.

It's such a good related text for English AOS. No, I didn't actually do this question. I ended up changing my question about three times. Initially it was “Assess how perspectives of the Jewish people of the Holocaust have changed over time through media representations?” (hence the Book Thief) -but obviously it was way too broad. I ended up doing "Assess the Goldhagen v. Browning debate, focussing on why the German people of police battalion 101 were involved in the murder of the Jewish people." (I focussed on the historians context, methodology and how this affected their interpretations. It was really interesting )

Oooo sounds interesting! I've never heard of the Goldhagen v. Browning debate Would love to here more about your interpretation

Yeah, it did have Tom Hiddleston. I don't know if the horse was nominated for an oscar. Would be cool if it was. I haven't read a lot of historical fiction since starting history extension so I don't really know how much it would affect me now. It's great once you have actually studied the history behind it and then read the books.

Looking into it I think that was just a meme hahaha - I think people suggested he be nominated, but the academy never officially recognised him  Sad times we're living in, go back to Ancient times and horses could become consul, and now their talent goes unrecognised .

I've never seen Pocahontas before (one of the only Disney movies I haven't seen). But a romance between her and a rapist is gross/wrong. I understand the Holocaust example as well. It's like, Historical fiction can be really good sometimes but it needs barriers and to be fairly accurate to the societies that it is portraying. You just can't have just have false narratives like that.

I really liked the movie when I was younger, but studying it in history extension (originally my major work was on the disneyfication of history) definitely made me see a new side of it. It's funny, because I'm someone who wants to work in combining the mediums of history and film, either through docos or educational content - I wonder if I will end up becoming what I detest

I'll do the other's later on in the week. Thanks Susie , I'm also going to your Ancient lecture in the holidays so i'm really excited about that!!

Sounds great! Make sure to come say hi in one of the breaks! Can't wait to meet everyone

[sudodds]

Just watched another super funny video, this time from TV show 'Adam Ruins Everything'! (started on College Humour  by Adam Conover ) The clip is titled How Prostitutes Settled the Wild West, and basically goes into the hidden history of 'Wild West' America, and the really significant contributions made by women (particularly in Wyoming) that no one seems to know about!

When we think 'Wild West', most of us probably picture a white, male, gun toting cowboy. However, according to this clip (which references a bunch of sources mind!), the towns and settlements would not have even come to be without the lucrative, buisness savy minds of many women, who utilised prostitution to achieve massive wealth, status and power within the communities! Many towns were built around these women-owned, women-ran brothels!

I found this really interesting, and I think it relates very keenly to a topic that has been mentioned a few times throughout this thread - the conflict between Great Men/Top-down History, and Social/Grassroots/Bottom-up History! It also can be linked quite clearly to the concept of Gender History, and Feminist History (because they are actually different things - if anyone can give me the reason why they get extra brownie points )

So my question is - why do you think that the history of the women of the Wild West has been neglected? Do you think the history of women (and other minority groups) has been neglected period?

Can't wait to hear what you guys come up with (I did part of my major work on this historiographical idea )!

Susie

[alethea]

Just watched another super funny video, this time from TV show 'Adam Ruins Everything'! (started on College Humour  by Adam Conover ) The clip is titled How Prostitutes Settled the Wild West, and basically goes into the hidden history of 'Wild West' America, and the really significant contributions made by women (particularly in Wyoming) that no one seems to know about!

When we think 'Wild West', most of us probably picture a white, male, gun toting cowboy. However, according to this clip (which references a bunch of sources mind!), the towns and settlements would not have even come to be without the lucrative, buisness savy minds of many women, who utilised prostitution to achieve massive wealth, status and power within the communities! Many towns were built around these women-owned, women-ran brothels!

I found this really interesting, and I think it relates very keenly to a topic that has been mentioned a few times throughout this thread - the conflict between Great Men/Top-down History, and Social/Grassroots/Bottom-up History! It also can be linked quite clearly to the concept of Gender History, and Feminist History (because they are actually different things - if anyone can give me the reason why they get extra brownie points )

So my question is - why do you think that the history of the women of the Wild West has been neglected? Do you think the history of women (and other minority groups) has been neglected period?

Can't wait to hear what you guys come up with (I did part of my major work on this historiographical idea )!

Susie

The reason the women of the Wild West have been neglected is because history writers would have excluded female voices - either through choosing sources written by men instead of sources written by the prostitutes or brothel owners,   or because of a lack of available evidence showing womens role.

Another reason why the history of women has been excluded is due to the nature of public history and discourse. The majority of the populace know about the Wild West through films like The Magnificent Seven (1960 classic or 2016 remake) or A Fistful of Dollars (1964) which portray female characters as damsels of distress and focus on the ‘cowboys’ instead of the lives of the women.

Interestingly, while the video only focuses on how the women have been excluded from history, people of colour have also been neglected in the history of the Wild West. This article in the Atlantic (available:https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/how-the-west-was-lost/502850/) discusses the inaccuracy of Hollywood only representing white male figures as this is an “exclusionary account of American history “as people of colour were not only present at the inception of the Wild West—but they were also its primary architects.”

[sudodds]

The reason the women of the Wild West have been neglected is because history writers would have excluded female voices - either through choosing sources written by men instead of sources written by the prostitutes or brothel owners, or because of a lack of available evidence showing womens role.

Do you think that this is an issue of active sexism? Do you think that the historians of the time were actively attempting to cover up the experiences and contributions of women, or do you think that it was more of just an example of neglect? Either way there are definitely feminist implications, however I think basically what I am wondering is whether or not you think that this was deliberate censorship, or just that in our patriarchal society historians either a) didn't really care about the role of women in comparison to the role of men, b) understood that the public didn't really care about the role of women, and thus wrote their histories to suit public demand? Hope I explained this correctly haha.

I think the lack of available evidence argument is really interesting! Why do you think that there is a lack of available evidence? Do you think that a lack of evidence means that history is impossible? For my major work, for one of my paragraphs I looked at how social historians, due to a lack of evidence pertaining to their focus areas, have to use "sociological imagination" in order to fill in the gaps - essentially making educated guesses. Do you think that by doing this, they are perverting history? Or do you think that the application of sociological imagination is necessary, and that it does not invalidate social history?

Another reason why the history of women has been excluded is due to the nature of public history and discourse. The majority of the populace know about the Wild West through films like The Magnificent Seven (1960 classic or 2016 remake) or A Fistful of Dollars (1964) which portray female characters as damsels of distress and focus on the ‘cowboys’ instead of the lives of the women.

REALLY interesting and valid point! I also love how you have provided examples, these would be great to incorporate within your essays! I definitely agree that the role of popular media and entertainment can have a significant impact upon the way in which we perceive history. As mentioned earlier, Disney's 'Pocahontas' has pretty much rewritten history, as have many other historical fiction films such as 'Titanic' and  'Schindler's List' - the public are more likely to consume this form of media, than read a big wordy history book, thus cinema and fiction often have a more powerful and authoritative role in history than many historians!

Again, you can definitely link this portrayal to views of gender - the image of a damsel in distress; the physically weak, attractive girl who needs to be "saved" by the big, burly cowboy - definitely has sexist implications. I think you can take this even further as well, into the way in which society views prostitutes and prostitution! They mention this in the video, but there is the sense that the occupation is unbefitting of a lady, and that those who take part are somehow lesser - despite the fact that as clearly demonstrated through the video, prostitution allowed for many women of the time to achieve financial independence and even social status and dominance! Of course - this wouldn't have been every woman's experience, and I think that the video fails to translate that (I'm sure there were many women who would have preferred to not take part but were forced to). However, either way societies views of prostitutes definitely would have shaped film portrayals. It's just not something people necessarily want to think about or have portrayed - particularly in films that may have a younger audience. The damsel in distress is the picture of innocence, and thus though she may not be as historically accurate, is more fictionally appealing - which may account for her prevalence as a character throughout Western movies, in comparison to the successful, lucrative prostitute.

Interestingly, while the video only focuses on how the women have been excluded from history, people of colour have also been neglected in the history of the Wild West. This article in the Atlantic (available:https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/how-the-west-was-lost/502850/) discusses the inaccuracy of Hollywood only representing white male figures as this is an “exclusionary account of American history “as people of colour were not only present at the inception of the Wild West—but they were also its primary architects.”

Very very interesting point! Women's voices definitely aren't the only ones being excluded, other groups in society, such as, as you said, African Americans, but also Native Americans, Asians, Latinx, working classes, LGBTQ, etc. have also been unfairly under-represented throughout history. Thankfully, social history as a discipline has allowed for an expansion in our understanding of these groups, but as you mentioned earlier, a lack of sources makes a complete and thorough analysis of their role really difficult. No one bothered to record African American achievements throughout history, and thus their achievements and contributions have gone un noticed.

I'm curious - what is your opinion of Black History Month? This is a very active debate right now, particularly in America. On the one hand, it means an active push to make sure that black voices are being heard and recognised throughout history, and is also a push just for history in general to reach a wider audience! However some have argued that it promotes an oversimplification of history, similar in the way that 'Big Men history' oversimplifies history according to the achievements and contributions of white men. (there have been a lot of other arguments against Black History Month as you can imagine, most of them stemming from ideas in regards to racism (and the controversial idea of "reverse racism") rather than the historiographical implications. As much as I think this is a really important topic to be discussed, for the purposes of this thread lets stick to the more historiographical ideas ). In my opinion, I think Black History Month is a good thing Anything to further celebrate history, but also I do think it is important to make a conscious effort to try and right the historical wrong of past historical producers in their neglect of black history.

Thank so much for contributing your thoughts! You present some super interesting arguments Would love to hear more about your opinions further!

Susie

[bellerina]

This isn't paragraphs -obviously- just my overall arguments summed up in three dot-points.
Question: To what extent do historians 'own' history? (2011)
Statement: Whilst Historians significantly influence and thereby impact the a wide range of histories through their interpretation and construction, the notion that history is owned by historians is no longer true.

-   In today’s society, history can be written by the wider public (you don’t have to be a “historian” to research and write history)
-   Historians aren’t the only ones who are able to provide “historical truth”  there are many ways of representing historical truth e.g. showing history through film and media
-   History is always continuously changing as society changes  e.g. in earlier time, there was that concept that history is looking at the ‘great man’ view but as society changes the concept of what ‘history’ should be changes too. Now, there is the idea of social history which tries to extend its research upon all members of the society, and concentrating on the social, economic and cultural institutions

Give me harsh feedback because I don’t feel like my arguments make any sense!! And, what historians/sources should I look for? If I go with these arguments, that is. Any ideas?
I know I was thinking of using sources: History at the Movies: Using Historical Films in History, HTA Article, March 2001, By Daniel Reynaud/ History Goes to the Movies by Marnie Hughes-Warrington for my second argument

[sudodds]

This isn't paragraphs -obviously- just my overall arguments summed up in three dot-points.
Question: To what extent do historians 'own' history? (2011)
Statement: Whilst Historians significantly influence and thereby impact the a wide range of histories through their interpretation and construction, the notion that history is owned by historians is no longer true.

Awesome judgement! Nice and nuanced - interesting addition that it is "no longer" true. So you think it was true to begin with?

-   In today’s society, history can be written by the wider public (you don’t have to be a “historian” to research and write history)

Definitely a great point! In previous generations, the qualification to be a historian was a PHD, something only a few small, select group of individuals possess (or have the ability to possess in the future - university wasn't the most accessible to various groups of individuals - link to social history perhaps ).Furthermore, we didn't always have the internet, and "history books" and sources were also fairly inaccessible. Either you had to be a member of the university to access the texts, or pretty wealthy (because academic history books are fck'n expensive!) Though many still consider this the baseline, this is definitely a dying belief. Public history and popular history has definitely broadened the Discipline in unprecedented ways. History books are now regularly consumed by "ordinary" individuals, and these books are by nature of the way in which they were written more accessible (potentially more narrative, less bulky etc. etc.). Along with this, they aren't just consuming history books, but other forms of media, particularly documentaries are becoming more and more prevalent!

So overall - stellar point However make sure that you fully determine what a historian actually is, because the lines can be blurred. Is a historian someone with a PHD who writes history, or is it anyone who writes history??

-   Historians aren’t the only ones who are able to provide “historical truth”  there are many ways of representing historical truth e.g. showing history through film and media

My first point there - is historical truth actually a thing? Is historical truth objective, or is it subjective? This is an important distinction, because in my opinion, film by its very nature is not truth, just a representation of a supposed truth. The reason I think this is because it is scripted - we have no idea what individuals actually said, how they said it, what they meant by it etc. etc. Sets and costumes can never be 100% accurate, at least in my opinion. So rather than film and media allowing more ways to provide historical truth, maybe they broaden the discipline in other ways? Historians don't own history, because media, through creating popular discourse, owns history. Think about it, more people are watching the movie 'Titanic' than reading about the actual event, thus our understanding of the event is shaped by the film, creating a new "history" that dominates that created by historians!

-   History is always continuously changing as society changes  e.g. in earlier time, there was that concept that history is looking at the ‘great man’ view but as society changes the concept of what ‘history’ should be changes too. Now, there is the idea of social history which tries to extend its research upon all members of the society, and concentrating on the social, economic and cultural institutions

LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE!!!!! Part of my major work looked at this, definitely a really strong argument to make! Don't have much to add here, you've hit the nail on the head with this one If you have any specific questions about this issue though let me know because I'd love to have a discussion with you about it

Give me harsh feedback because I don’t feel like my arguments make any sense!! And, what historians/sources should I look for? If I go with these arguments, that is. Any ideas?
I know I was thinking of using sources: History at the Movies: Using Historical Films in History, HTA Article, March 2001, By Daniel Reynaud/ History Goes to the Movies by Marnie Hughes-Warrington for my second argument

I was always told to avoid Marnie Hughes-Warrington as a source, as a lot of her works are more so textbooks than works of historiography. What I'd be looking at is contemporary examples of films - Schindler's List would be a good example, as Spielburg made a big deal of the fact that his film was historically accurate because they used a whopping TWO sources for each issue (omg wow two what a high number...  ). Examples of popular historians include Bill O'Reilly (utter shite), Niall Ferguson (opinions are utter shite but good historian nonetheless) and Eric Hobsbawm (the king). I'd also have a look at David Christian and his book/concept 'Big History', just because it also deals with the issue of historians don't own history - money owns history (because Bill Gates is a massive fan, and has funded the research to such an extent that he is trying to get it to be included in school curriculums). The classic EH Carr is never a bad inclusion. For social history I suggest looking at John Vincent

Hope this helps!! Great work

Susie

[katie,rinos]

Colorisation
I’m kinda a fence sitter on this (Can we be fence sitters in our exams in our arguments or do we need a more solid argument?). However i’m not really sure if colorisation is worth the potential inaccuracies that may be caused.
Advantages:
-   They are so cool and considered more live-like/relatable to the people of today.
-   Some small details aren’t too big a deal if they are coloured wrong. However, this point can be really hard to differentiate. What could be considered really unimportant to me could be crucial to someone else, and to get that wrong would mean historical inaccuracies.

Disadvantages
-   Historical inaccuracies: No matter how hard the technological people have worked, you can never have the picture 100% accurate. Your Holocaust example pretty much shows how historians could be falsely misled due to an error in colourisation, therefore leading to completely different interpretations of an event.

Thanks again! I feel like this is such an under appreciated thread!

[sudodds]

Lectures are over so finally getting back into the swing of things!

Colorisation
I’m kinda a fence sitter on this (Can we be fence sitters in our exams in our arguments or do we need a more solid argument?).

There is more room for nuance in a history extension essay than there is in modern or ancient, however in the end you do want to be making an overall judgement

However i’m not really sure if colorisation is worth the potential inaccuracies that may be caused.

Interesting argument! And different to what other students have said previously in this thread - that is why I love this subject so much, SOOOOO much interpretation and debate! Everyone has different opinions and it's amazing <3

Advantages:
-   They are so cool and considered more live-like/relatable to the people of today.

Definitely promote a greater level of empathy that is for sure - however, is the purpose of history to help us empathise with the past? That could actually be an interesting argument. Is history attempting to understand the past in terms of understanding what it was like in the past, or understanding how the past contributes to today? What do you think? Do you think we study the past to know more about the past? Or do we study the past to know more about what led up to the present conditions of today?

-   Some small details aren’t too big a deal if they are coloured wrong. However, this point can be really hard to differentiate. What could be considered really unimportant to me could be crucial to someone else, and to get that wrong would mean historical inaccuracies.

We mentioned earlier the Nazi triangles - can you think of any other examples of this? Where the incorrect colorisation of photos could actually completely tell a new narrative?

Disadvantages
-   Historical inaccuracies: No matter how hard the technological people have worked, you can never have the picture 100% accurate. Your Holocaust example pretty much shows how historians could be falsely misled due to an error in colourisation, therefore leading to completely different interpretations of an event.

Does the threat of historical inaccuracies mean we just shouldn't try though? If we can acknowledge that a completely 100% accurate picture is unattainable, and a completely 100% accurate interpretation of history is unattainable - does the discipline of history just disappear? Or do the central aims of its construction change? Is history the search for truth? Does truth always have to be objective?

Thanks again! I feel like this is such an under appreciated thread!

Absolutely no worries! So excited that this thread is starting to pick up (a. because I think it has the potential to be an amazing resource for extension students but also b. I just really like discussing this kinda stuff hahahaha)

Susie

[katie,rinos]

There is more room for nuance in a history extension essay than there is in modern or ancient, however in the end you do want to be making an overall judgement

Okay, thanks.

Definitely promote a greater level of empathy that is for sure - however, is the purpose of history to help us empathise with the past? That could actually be an interesting argument. Is history attempting to understand the past in terms of understanding what it was like in the past, or understanding how the past contributes to today? What do you think? Do you think we study the past to know more about the past? Or do we study the past to know more about what led up to the present conditions of today?

I don't really think that there is one simple purpose to history- I believe that every historian writes with an agenda and that some purposes are going to be different then others. I believe in some circumstances we don't try to understand what it was like in the past because we don't really believe that it did contribute much to us today. The effects of Pompeii don't really impact 21st Century Australia a huge amount (except that we need to learn about in Ancient) . I think that we also try to understand how the past has led to today. In terms of Australia, we are constantly taught about our past Aboriginal history and how wrong the Europeans actions were. However, I believe in attempting to understand how the past led to today, we automatically believe that the Ancient people weren't as smart as us (like you were saying in the Ancient lecture - we almost believe that we are teleologically evolving to something better). Basically, I believe history is a mix of studying the past to learn more about the past, and what has led up to today.

We mentioned earlier the Nazi triangles - can you think of any other examples of this? Where the incorrect colorisation of photos could actually completely tell a new narrative?

I actually tried to do this so much but I couldn't think of anything. I know that there would be quite a few examples though.

Does the threat of historical inaccuracies mean we just shouldn't try though? If we can acknowledge that a completely 100% accurate picture is unattainable, and a completely 100% accurate interpretation of history is unattainable - does the discipline of history just disappear? Or do the central aims of its construction change? Is history the search for truth? Does truth always have to be objective?

No, I think that we still need to try, however acknowledging that absolute truth will be unattainable. If we just dismissed everything due to a lack of objectivity and truth then we would have no history-and i don't think that the discipline of history should ever disappear. Then there would be no way to learn about the past. I also don't believe that there will be one methodology that will work for every historian to provide absolute truth (and also, like we said before, maybe objectivity can never be fully reached, no matter how hard they try). I think that to some extent, history is the search for truth but there is also bias' that comes into place (and other factors such as political aims, religious viewpoints and agendas). No, truth doesn't always have to be objective. A historian could be really subjective and still write about something that is true (such as Pliny's account of the eruption which was biased due to his admiration of his uncles actions.)

Absolutely no worries! So excited that this thread is starting to pick up (a. because I think it has the potential to be an amazing resource for extension students but also b. I just really like discussing this kinda stuff hahahaha)
Susie

I actually really love this thread. Can't wait till it becomes even more popular

[sudodds]

Hey guys!

Just watched a video from one of my faves - John Green. Though not a historian (please don't ever call him a historian in your responses!) he does often present some really interesting historiography within his Crash Course history videos! An example of this is: The Dark Ages...How Dark Were They, Really?: Crash Course World History #14, where he raises a really interesting question: Where the dark ages really that dark?

Have a watch of the video and give me ya thoughts Do you think John Green is right? What form of history is he utilising? Do you think that he is just doing the exact same thing as the historians he is criticising, just with the opposite perspective? Why do YOU think that the dark ages has developed this "dark" interpretation!

Super excited to hear your thoughts!!

Susie

(btw Katie - I will respond to your other arguments ASAP!)

[sudodds]

I don't really think that there is one simple purpose to history- I believe that every historian writes with an agenda and that some purposes are going to be different then others.

What are some different purposes you can think of? Also, do you think that this is always a conscious thing? Like do historians intentionally write with this alternative purpose, or is it just inherent.

I believe in some circumstances we don't try to understand what it was like in the past because we don't really believe that it did contribute much to us today. The effects of Pompeii don't really impact 21st Century Australia a huge amount (except that we need to learn about in Ancient) .

Very interesting point! But on the flip side then, do you think we only will try and understand what it was like to live in the past if it provides relevance for the present/future? Like your Pompeii example, people in Australia still very much do try to understand what it was like to live in Pompeii and Herculaneum - eg. Estelle Lazer who works at Sydney Uni! I feel like if this was the case, much of Ancient History would go unstudied (apart from maybe the Greeks and Romans), as a direct correlation between a time so long ago, and today is hard to come by.

I think that we also try to understand how the past has led to today. In terms of Australia, we are constantly taught about our past Aboriginal history and how wrong the Europeans actions were.

Another great point, which links to the idea of National History! Because if you think about it - why are only Australians taught about Aboriginal history - why isn't it be taught across the world? Is it because we want history to be inherently relatable to us? Or does it go deeper - ie. into the realms of nationalism and national identity? Or is it more a case of eurocentrism? Like - why do we all learn about European history, pretty much no matter where we are, but comparatively less people would be confident in their knowledge of African history, or Latinx history for example? Why do you think there is this fascination with 'national history', and do you think it is inherently a flawed concept?

However, I believe in attempting to understand how the past led to today, we automatically believe that the Ancient people weren't as smart as us (like you were saying in the Ancient lecture - we almost believe that we are teleologically evolving to something better). Basically, I believe history is a mix of studying the past to learn more about the past, and what has led up to today.

I think Mary Beard says it best in this article (along with some other amazing things) - "it is a dangerous myth that we are better historians than our predecessors."

I actually tried to do this so much but I couldn't think of anything. I know that there would be quite a few examples though.

Hmmm, definitely tricky! I think any other moments whereby colour is symbolic would be an example - for example colours in religious garments being misrepresented and what not, can impact the way in which we perceive an individuals role within the religion or organisation.

However, at the same time, even though recolouring the photos can often distort our perception of an image - so can leaving them black and white! For example, take a look at this photo from the set of the Addams Family. Though not necessarily a historical event, it does show how drastically changing a colour to black and white can alter our perception of an image.

No, I think that we still need to try, however acknowledging that absolute truth will be unattainable.

So do you think all interpretations are equally flawed (eg. a postmodernist), or are some interpretations more valid than others (relativist)? If so, what can make someones interpretation more valid?

If we just dismissed everything due to a lack of objectivity and truth then we would have no history-and i don't think that the discipline of history should ever disappear. Then there would be no way to learn about the past. I also don't believe that there will be one methodology that will work for every historian to provide absolute truth (and also, like we said before, maybe objectivity can never be fully reached, no matter how hard they try).

Interesting! You say that you don't think that one methodology will work for every historian - what do you mean by that exactly? Obviously there will be variations, however what I find really interesting is that no matter what type of historian they are - eg. relativist, empiricist, etc. - pretty much EVERYONE uses the Rankean source analysis approach. Like, people can hate that guy and disagree with him to their hearts content, but theres no denying the impact of his approach to the discipline of history. Can you note any flaws in his approach?

I think that to some extent, history is the search for truth but there is also bias' that comes into place (and other factors such as political aims, religious viewpoints and agendas). No, truth doesn't always have to be objective. A historian could be really subjective and still write about something that is true (such as Pliny's account of the eruption which was biased due to his admiration of his uncles actions.)

Hmm I think I more so mean, does truth have to be objective in that does it have to be universally true to be considered truth? Like is my interpretation still truth, because it is what I experienced, but a subjective truth? Kinda like this meme:


Are they both right, but they just have different truths? Or are they both wrong, because neither is an objective truth?

I actually really love this thread. Can't wait till it becomes even more popular

me too Katie! me too!