One often learns what happened in the past in History class. But what about learning about what happened in the past about learning about what happened in the past? This post will examine the ancient study of history.
The earliest recorded pieces of writing are receipts for cattle, wheat, etc. These record history: ergo, they could be considered historical. However, what happens when paste events are recorded to be actively studied? To do this, we have to go back to the Greeks. There were other historical authors before the Greeks, but they really brought the medium into its own, and the first recorded historians were all Greeks. An important figure in this movement was Herodotus. Herodotus approached history methodically, and made the first attempt to separate more and less accurate sources. By doing this, Herodotus began the idea of using reputable sources to back up one's writing, which continues to this very day. Thus, Herodotus kickstarted our study of history by crediting sources and writing analytically about past events.
Eleven students and their teacher seek to understand the origins of the modern world in the history of Western Civilization from the 18th to the 21st centuries.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The Development of History as a Separate Field of Study
In the modern day, History is a topic with stringent
qualifications. Today’s historical accounts are expected to be based purely
upon physical facts and to make an attempt to remove any kind of bias from the
work. History writing is also generally supposed to be structured into an
analytical essay or a textbook-type entry. However, recounting of history was
not always so separate from religion, oral or literal stories, or any type of
bias. The writers Herodotus and Thucydides of Ancient Greece are generally
touted as the earliest historians, but even Herodotus’s work blurs the line
between history and religion as he repeatedly references religious events and
the Trojan war in his histories. Greeks and Romans would continue to refine
their historical practices.
Much later,
during the Middle ages, people’s understanding of history was very focused on
the bible, and this was a practice that would continue mainly up to scientific
research began disproving the bible. Anyhow, history has not really developed
into its own form separate from religion, stories, and bias until the modern
era. Nowadays, it is taboo to include these things in a historical account. All
this is very reflective of enlightenment thinking, histories basis, and sole
basis should be upon real evidence, and history has developed in to topic and
field of study all its own
.Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Objective History: Does It Exist?
When we examine our past we tend to try to do so 'objectively.'
What does that mean? Logic, by it's very nature, requires assumptions upon which conclusions can be made. History, while fortunately not (at least supposedly) concerned with ethics, is concerned with epistemology. We need to know how we learn about our past before we can know anything about it. Historians, therefore, tend to assume the correctness of uniformitarianism and determinism; that the forces of the universe do not change, and that the current state of the universe was created by those forces acting on previous states. This is not to say that those are bad assumptions. I would agree with them. It is to say, however, that they are assumptions, in that they are baseless. There is no evidence to prove either because each is necessary to determine what is evidence.
To return to the original question, what, therefore, is 'objective?' Even if we assume perfect logic given assumptions, said assumptions still have to be taken to be true without evidence. That therefore means true objectivity in history is impossible; something always must be assumed, and said assumption has no basis, and is therefore subjective.
Why is this so important? Objectivity is an idea that students of history tend to gravitate towards. In its pure state, however, objectivity is unobtainable. We must accept that assumptions must always be made. The best we can do, therefore, is clarify our assumptions when we present anything as absolute truth. Nothing can exist as such in a vacuum; something can only be proven to be true if the criteria for such a proof have been established, an intrinsically subjective act.
Clarifying assumptions is key to effective communication of ideas. If two students of history disagree upon a point, if both don't accept the same assumptions, no argument, however logical, will convince either of them. Both will see the other's argument, perfectly logical under the other's assumptions, as illogical, for they are judging it using their own assumptions. This is how many historical arguments are created. A key prior step to overcoming this is to first determine what one's own assumptions towards history actually are, a question that is not always so easy to answer.
Once such a question is answered, however, either both can accept the same assumptions and logic can prevail to decide upon the verdict, or both can understand that neither can ever be 'objectively' correct, for there is no way to determine the better assumption.
This is a problem particularly prevalent in the study of history because in the study of history people tend to assume that they are operating 'objectively,' when clearly they are not. Instead, we must remember not to abandon logical argument, for that is the key to understanding history given assumptions, but we must also remember to clarify our assumptions, for otherwise no such logical argument is possible in the first place.
What does that mean? Logic, by it's very nature, requires assumptions upon which conclusions can be made. History, while fortunately not (at least supposedly) concerned with ethics, is concerned with epistemology. We need to know how we learn about our past before we can know anything about it. Historians, therefore, tend to assume the correctness of uniformitarianism and determinism; that the forces of the universe do not change, and that the current state of the universe was created by those forces acting on previous states. This is not to say that those are bad assumptions. I would agree with them. It is to say, however, that they are assumptions, in that they are baseless. There is no evidence to prove either because each is necessary to determine what is evidence.
To return to the original question, what, therefore, is 'objective?' Even if we assume perfect logic given assumptions, said assumptions still have to be taken to be true without evidence. That therefore means true objectivity in history is impossible; something always must be assumed, and said assumption has no basis, and is therefore subjective.
Why is this so important? Objectivity is an idea that students of history tend to gravitate towards. In its pure state, however, objectivity is unobtainable. We must accept that assumptions must always be made. The best we can do, therefore, is clarify our assumptions when we present anything as absolute truth. Nothing can exist as such in a vacuum; something can only be proven to be true if the criteria for such a proof have been established, an intrinsically subjective act.
Clarifying assumptions is key to effective communication of ideas. If two students of history disagree upon a point, if both don't accept the same assumptions, no argument, however logical, will convince either of them. Both will see the other's argument, perfectly logical under the other's assumptions, as illogical, for they are judging it using their own assumptions. This is how many historical arguments are created. A key prior step to overcoming this is to first determine what one's own assumptions towards history actually are, a question that is not always so easy to answer.
Once such a question is answered, however, either both can accept the same assumptions and logic can prevail to decide upon the verdict, or both can understand that neither can ever be 'objectively' correct, for there is no way to determine the better assumption.
This is a problem particularly prevalent in the study of history because in the study of history people tend to assume that they are operating 'objectively,' when clearly they are not. Instead, we must remember not to abandon logical argument, for that is the key to understanding history given assumptions, but we must also remember to clarify our assumptions, for otherwise no such logical argument is possible in the first place.
Language and Translation
The Rosetta Stone |
As some cultures died away, so did their languages, but some civilizations had written records. However, deciphering ancient languages is a challenge. There are a few hints found here and there, and that is about the only information given about the language. Something that really helped this process was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799. It had a text inscribed both in ancient Greek and Hieroglyphics, allowing historians at the time to use their knowledge of the Greek language to decipher the Egyptian Hieroglyphics.
If someone wants a primary source but is not able to speak the original language, they will be forced to rely on a translation. One problem with translation is that the original flow of a text can not always be carried over between languages. For example, in Homer's The Odyssey, even the best English translations do not have the full, identical rhythm and rhyme that the original does, and is not always able to preserve the beauty of the famous literary work. Translators might sometimes also find difficulty translating the nuances of a piece of literature. It obviously is not easy translating documents, but preserving meaning is of main concern. Perhaps there is a certain word or concept that the original language has but the new one does not. How does one go about translating this? There are certainly translators that are great at what they do, but no translation is perfect.
For my term paper, I considered using a translated document, but did not end up using it because it did not fit. However, it would have been interesting to learn what the original text was like (if I could read 16th century Spanish) and compare it to its translation. What would the similarities be? Was anything left out? What would the original author think of this translation?
Staying Objective
The
process of discovering my term paper's focal point was difficult to begin with
because I went into the research with a pre-conceived idea of what I was
looking for. I was extremely interested in the Scientific Revolution and its
connection to religion, and I really wanted to make an argument about how
religion helped progress scientific research in astronomy. Only after I had
read one or two articles did I decide that I was searching for evidence to
support that idea. Instead of letting the evidence and research guide me, I
came in with a very specific (and non-objective) 'thesis,' which I attempted to
fulfill. I tried to make connections when there was no real evidence to support
it, and in doing so manipulated the real research to conform to my
pre-conceptions.
What I really needed was to take a step back, say to myself "this is
just not working," and become more objective about what I was looking for.
After I realized this, broadening my research question helped immensely
with the process of finding a supportable thesis statement. So from there I
pretty much started over with reading general books on the Scientific
Revolution; I absorbed the information with an objective mind and found a
better idea to follow.
vesalius.jpg from http://www.myspace.com/primatediaries/blog/312764609
Patterns in History
In the writing of my term paper rough draft, I have noticed that, as historians, we are constantly comparing the issues of the past to issues of the present day. Perhaps characteristics of a certain historical dictator remind us of a modern leader. Maybe the causes and effects of a war fought long ago might be similar to a war we are engaged in today. In the conclusion of my term paper, I linked 16th century New World slave labor to the sweatshop labor of today. These comparisons beg the question: Is the repetition of history a bad thing? Are we repeating the same errors?
Or perhaps the repetition of history is beneficial because it allows us to prevent future errors. If we see a certain conflict occur multiple times, it is a clue that something is wrong with the general situation which brought about that conflict. In fact, one of the most important parts of studying history is using history to predict the future.
But maybe, no matter what we do, history will always repeat itself. There will always be horrible dictators and bloody wars. There is no way of stopping them. Human struggle is inevitable. Although we might believe that we are capable of changing the course of history, human beings simply do not have that power.
This observation links to the "Great Man" theory of history. I say that great, historical events will eventually happen and it doesn't matter who makes them possible. Certain things are inevitable.
Or perhaps the repetition of history is beneficial because it allows us to prevent future errors. If we see a certain conflict occur multiple times, it is a clue that something is wrong with the general situation which brought about that conflict. In fact, one of the most important parts of studying history is using history to predict the future.
But maybe, no matter what we do, history will always repeat itself. There will always be horrible dictators and bloody wars. There is no way of stopping them. Human struggle is inevitable. Although we might believe that we are capable of changing the course of history, human beings simply do not have that power.
This observation links to the "Great Man" theory of history. I say that great, historical events will eventually happen and it doesn't matter who makes them possible. Certain things are inevitable.
History: The Study of...Now?
When
I chose my term paper topic (which is fear as a weapon in World War I, especially
focused on chemical warfare), I wanted to look at it from an angle that could
still be relevant and appreciated today. I wanted to focus on the psychology of
the issue, the humanity, and the effect on the world. In essence, I wanted the
paper to be on how humans battle each other, just using WWI as an example. I wanted to have the arguments I made be applicable in WWII, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, wars of the future... Here, in fear during war, was a theme that could be applied throughout history and would continue to be
applied. In studying history, we attempt to take elements of the past to today
and look at elements we have today then. History is a way to improve and
understand our world now. We can learn from the mistakes and triumphs of
others, see how the world was shaped, and follow patterns to the future.
History is not about the past, but about the present and the future. It is
important to recognize this in our studies to feel a purpose and understanding
of why we must occupy our days with events of the past. With the perspectives given to us by past events, we can analyze and recognize current events. We can predict what will happen next and urge it on or try to prevent it. How we study history is the creation of this bridge between past and present and future.
Soldiers of World War I (Source: flickr.com) |
Paleography
Paleography, or the study of ancient writing and the dating and deciphering of old manuscripts, has always been an intriguing and vital part of recognizing historical occurrences. Much of paleographic progress has been due to the Rosetta Stone, the ancient Egyptian stele inscribed with three lingual translations that allowed accurate transcriptions to be made between the previously indecipherable scripts of Demotic, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and Ancient Greek. It is difficult to imagine how historical examination would have progressed without Napoleon's fortunate discover of the Stone; the largest portion of historical knowledge is attributed to found samples of writing. Writing is one of the most powerful tools of recording, shaping, and examining history, and provides the clearest and most accurate depiction of ancient life otherwise merely hinted at through archaeological excavations. Even with the discovery of the thousand year old Rosetta Stone (which in itself is a marvel of paleographic aptitude), paleography has always seemed of the most difficult aspects of history. Imagine holding a thousand year old tablet weathered by wind, rain, and chafing sand, faced with the seemingly monumental task of drawing any semblance of meaning from the nearly invisible scratches in the stone.
Paleography is especially challenging because throughout history, the alphabet has constantly evolved, especially emphasized as the ancient world began to rely more heavily on writing for economic and political purposes and began to adapt the alphabet to better meet their needs. Furthermore, scribes often used abbreviations, ligatures, and strange punctuation, thus further complicating the text. To me however, independent of the seemingly smaller issues encountered by paleography, I wonder how do you even start? How do you look at a single small line engraved in a weathered, thousand year old tablet and piece it together to reach a conclusion about their daily life, enough to construct a digital model of their world and determine that one day in October some thousands of years ago, a merchant bought sixteen amphoras of olive oil. I feel bad for my teachers when they have to read my chicken-stratch essays on tests, but at least I am trying to and hopefully achieving writing in modern English. It is baffling to me that a group of historians could look at ancient writing and bring entire worlds into being. Go paleography!
Paleography is especially challenging because throughout history, the alphabet has constantly evolved, especially emphasized as the ancient world began to rely more heavily on writing for economic and political purposes and began to adapt the alphabet to better meet their needs. Furthermore, scribes often used abbreviations, ligatures, and strange punctuation, thus further complicating the text. To me however, independent of the seemingly smaller issues encountered by paleography, I wonder how do you even start? How do you look at a single small line engraved in a weathered, thousand year old tablet and piece it together to reach a conclusion about their daily life, enough to construct a digital model of their world and determine that one day in October some thousands of years ago, a merchant bought sixteen amphoras of olive oil. I feel bad for my teachers when they have to read my chicken-stratch essays on tests, but at least I am trying to and hopefully achieving writing in modern English. It is baffling to me that a group of historians could look at ancient writing and bring entire worlds into being. Go paleography!
Friday, March 8, 2013
Irish-English Relations in the 19th Century
-->
The extreme poverty of the Irish was the result of the Great Famine that occurred between 1845-1852, caused by overdependence on the potato crop. Widespread starvation caused what is known as the Land War, which was not really a war but rather a boycott (in fact, this was the first time the term "boycott" was brought into the English language). Tenants refused to pay rent to their landlords and the English army was brought in to assist the police and to enforce the law. The English interference only deepened the harsh feelings between the English and the Irish.
--> The above article from April 25th, 1839, describes the many bills created for Irish improvement. Most bills were about who owned what land. Common topics included use of wasteland, mortgage issues (allowing the Bank of Ireland to lend money for mortgage), leases, tenants for life, and land boundaries.
-->
I came across an article
about "the Irish gentleman" and "the Irish jontleman" from
October 31st, 1836. The Irish gentlemen was considered rare. The article
defines the Irish “jontlemen” (opposite of gentlemen) as a impudent man with
features too vulgar for a “female pencil” to draw. Irishmen were historically
stereotyped as vulgar and rude by the English. The Anglo-Saxons (the English)
had always hated the Celts (the Irish). In the 12th century, Gerald of Wales,
the archdeacon of Brecon, stated “The Irish are barbarous and rude.” The Irish
were treated as almost less than human, in the same way that the Africans or
Native Americans were treated by the British.
--> The help wanted ads in The Times were the most common form of racism against the Irish. This ad is from December 14th, 1840:
-->
-->
I was browsing through the help wanted section of
an issue of The Times from 1839 when I came across the above ad. I started
noticing more and more ads with the same short sentence at the end: "No
Irish need apply." I previously thought that the English and Irish had
similar cultures since they were so close in location, but I was very wrong.
The English passionately hated the Irish. After some research I've determined
three main reasons. The English despised the Irish historically and
religiously but also because the flood of Irish immigrants to England during
the Industrial Revolution caused greater competition in the job market.
On January 1st, 1840, Harvey Marriott's letter to the editor about the
condition of the Irish poor appeared in the Times. The country had never been
worse. He claimed that the main problem of the Irish was the lack of coal. The
quality and quantity of the fuel was low. The most horrible part was that he
predicted the dilemma might spread to England.The extreme poverty of the Irish was the result of the Great Famine that occurred between 1845-1852, caused by overdependence on the potato crop. Widespread starvation caused what is known as the Land War, which was not really a war but rather a boycott (in fact, this was the first time the term "boycott" was brought into the English language). Tenants refused to pay rent to their landlords and the English army was brought in to assist the police and to enforce the law. The English interference only deepened the harsh feelings between the English and the Irish.
--> The above article from April 25th, 1839, describes the many bills created for Irish improvement. Most bills were about who owned what land. Common topics included use of wasteland, mortgage issues (allowing the Bank of Ireland to lend money for mortgage), leases, tenants for life, and land boundaries.
Irish family being evicted, c. 1879. The Irish were usually the tenants of English landlords. Credit: Wikimedia Commons |
--> The help wanted ads in The Times were the most common form of racism against the Irish. This ad is from December 14th, 1840:
-->
The family who created the above ad requests "a respectable
young woman" so automatically the Irish were not included. The Irish were
considered uncivilized. An article in the Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian from
August 31st, 1850 said of two criminals: “They both had the scowling brows, the
pug nose, the retreating foreheads and the animal lips of the Irish Celt, so
peculiarly marked in the lower classes of that country...we maintain they had
not a single redeeming feature in their countenances but bore the distinct and
characteristic traits of sanguinary villains...” The Irish were depicted as
evil. No upright English person would have an Irish servant in their home.
The help wanted ad at the top of the page from
October 21st, 1839 requests a neat and clean servant who is an early riser.
Stereotypically, Irish people did not have any of these characteristics. They
were considered lazy and dirty because of their extreme poverty.
The English were also reluctant to give jobs to
the Irish because of increased competition for jobs and less space for housing.
Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish philosopher, describes Irish immigrants in 1840:
“...the uncivilized Irishman, not by his strength but by the opposite of
strength, drives out the Saxon native, takes possession in his room. There he
abides in his squalor and unreason, in his falsity and drunken disorder...”
Because of the Industrial Revolution, everyone came to the city for jobs, the
Irish included. English cities were already overcrowded and the droves of Irish
people flooding in did not help the situation.
The general hatred of Catholics in England made Irish life even
worse. Catholics were seen as intolerant and authoritarian. They were known for
trying to force their religion on everyone else. But even non-religious people
hated the Irish Catholics because of the Church of England. The Church of
England made religion political. It instilled an even deeper, nationalist
hatred for the Irish in the middle and lower classes, who typically didn't
practice religion as much as the upper class. On top of all of that, France and
Spain, England's biggest adversaries, were Catholic countries.
Although unjust, Irish racism was a normal part of daily life for most
British people in the 19th century.
-->
Scandal! Crime! Reality Television!
-->
Have you
ever wondered why reality shows have become a recent trend in the last decade
or so? To answer this, one must go back to England during the Industrial
Revolution to see the precedents of modern-day reality television and interest
in celebrities. In Industrial Revolution England, gossip and the cult of
celebrity was as large, if not larger, than it is now. The Court Circular was established to put out
news of the British royal family, that contained information about everything
the members of the royalty did during the previous day, with information such
as who went riding, who met foreign dignitaries, where everybody was, and other
such information. Following that section, reports of court proceedings were
printed, with special attention to detail given to ghastly reports of crimes
committed. Thus, newspapers in the Industrial revolution fulfilled the niche
that reality shows to today: they gave details of celebrity life and deplorable
crimes to the public.
The Court
Circular was established by George III, who was angry at frequently incorrect
and sensationalist reports of the royal family’s actions and movements during
the day before. Additionally, it allowed the royal family control of gossip, so
they could avoid the spread of nasty rumors through popular newspapers, which
was a problem as frequently sensationalist reporters would misinterpret or even
invent rumors to benefit both themselves and their newspaper through publicity.
The establishment of the court circular benefited them twofold: It allowed them
control of media coverage, and satisfied the public’s obsession with the royal
family. This obsession is still very prevalent today, as the recent royal
wedding shows. Thus, the Court Circular provided a means of control over
peoples’ opinions of the royal family and allowed them to have control over
their own celebrity.
The front
pages of the newspaper were often covered in personal advertisements and
notices: this, besides being a source of revenue for the paper (as one had to
pay the paper in order to get one’s advertisement or message on the front
pages) provided small messages about marriages and marriage proposals. This
served the function of letting people know about the engagement and usually
publishing the address of the church so readers could attend the marriage.
These personal messages were not only about marriages: they also contained job
listings, information about deaths, and occasionally small obituaries. These,
besides notifying the rest of the public about town goings-on, provided small
windows into people’s daily lives, which allows us to learn more about what
daily life was like in 19th century London.
Additionally,
the paper printed details of crimes and court proceedings, so the public could
be given graphic information about crimes kept up to date on court issues.
These were undoubtedly for entertainment besides information, as they went into
graphic detail about the crime committed, with the correspondent often wording
the story in a particular manner in order to make it seem as exciting as
possible. This was not unlike a modern-day police show, where the officers are
shown chasing down, arresting the criminal, and dragging them to court. Full
details about the court proceedings were also given, with information such as
the deliberation time of the jury, names of lawyers, and the sentence almost
always being given. Thus, newspaper police reports fulfilled the public’s lust
for graphic details about crimes while providing information about the court
proceedings and the status of the prisoner [defendant in today’s terminology].
These
sections of the newspaper are very similar to the modern reality show: In fact,
they fulfilled the role of showing the public real –life (although often
exaggerated) information. The publication of the Court Circular allowed the
royal family and government direct control over what information about them and
their daily lives was published, which is the ancestor of modern-day public
relations companies, along with reality shows centered around the life of
celebrities. This celebrity fascination still continues to the present day,
especially around the royal family. This is exemplified by the recent royal
wedding, where several of the author’s relatives gathered in a Minnesotan house
to watch the wedding of two members of a foreign family, thousands of miles
away. Additionally, the publication of personal things in the newspaper has correlations
to modern-day life, with methods of communication such as the Internet taking
the place of newspaper announcements. For example, instead of publishing news
of a recent engagement in the newspaper, a couple may post video of the
proposal on a video-sharing site such as YouTube, while a family could post
news of a death online.
Two types of shows take the place
of newspaper crime reports in the modern world: police reality shows, and
police procedurals. Reality shows, such as Cops,
show police officers on their rounds, arresting felons and providing cheap,
heart-pounding entertainment, like the rather graphic crime reports of the
Industrial Revolution did. Police
procedurals tell (fictional) tales of police officers investigating various
crimes and prosecuting the criminals, often interspersed and combined with
elements of drama and action. These are similar to the court reports of the
Industrial Revolution, in that they both provide detail of court proceedings,
often showing dramatic court proceedings and courtroom drama. Thus, newspapers in the Industrial Revolution took the place of reality shows today, with entertaining but realistically useless information being printed for the entertainment of the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)