- This topic has 3 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
I have wanted to develop some sort of simple rule to address historical questions that is flexible enough to be used in a variety of circumstances. Say you need to present a list of five events from America to a group of people who aren't familiar with them. Is there an easy system you can use to succinctly analyze each event? Here is one system, courtesy of Wally:
EPIC: Since we are looking at history (usually events or event related)... Event to be considered, Parallel, other similar occurances in history, Implications, why it matters, what it means in and of itself, how it is different than the comparisons event(s), and the the Conclusion... what is the wider importance and or influence of the original event in terms of your stated implications.
Of course, there are also the five Ws. Even if you don't have a fancy acronym to go with it, can you think of any other easy-to-remember ways of analyzing historical events?
What do you mean by parallel? Isn't there a danger of projecting the cultural/societal conditions of one era to a different era? If so, how would you avoid that?
I think that parallels are useful in history studies, but obviously in broad ways (it's not as if history repeats itself exactly). The problem I am seeing in it is that parallels might not rise to the same level of importance as the other things in the list – the event itself, its implications, or “conclusion”. So perhaps “parallels” are better suited as a subpoint under a more important heading. Yet, this only confuses the matter, does it not?
Now that you stated it should be kept as a sub-heading, then no it's not confusing. Speaking of nutcase historians, it's the one's who compare soomething from today with something that happened centuries ago who are usually the worse. I know there are some VDH fans here, but when he said the Peloponnesian War was like the War on Terror, I was like “huh?”
Wait – so you can't compare things of today with things that happened centuries ago? Is that not precisely one of the benefits of studying history? I think the real criticism should not be about the chronology of one's comparisons, but instead about downright bad comparisons. The constant throughout history is human nature; it doesn't really change all that much on some levels, even as society does change. We should be able to look back and find situations from history which dealt with issues that resemble issues we currently deal with. For that, learning about history is very valuable.
No, of course I think you should compare, human nature hasn't changed, but it must be done very carefully. It's just that it can and has become very dangerous with bad comparisons…especially bad comparisons that have become mainstream now in some history teaching. It's like homosexuality in Greek history and comparing it to today. The Greek's weren't about gay rights and gay marriage. So to say because the Greeks accepted it we should too is wrong, IMO. I've read some who compare Sparta to the Nazis. I think history should emphasize and explain why something worked for civilization at that time, and if you have to or want to compare, then explain why it can or can't work for civilization now. This is just my opinon. If you think I'm off my rocker, please tell me. I'm just glad you said it was a sub-heading.
No, of course I think you should compare, human nature hasn't changed, but it must be done very carefully. It's just that it can and has become very dangerous with bad comparisons...especially bad comparisons that have become mainstream now in some history teaching. It's like homosexuality in Greek history and comparing it to today. The Greek's weren't about gay rights and gay marriage. So to say because the Greeks accepted it we should too is wrong, IMO. I've read some who compare Sparta to the Nazis. I think history should emphasize and explain why something worked for civilization at that time, and if you have to or want to compare, then explain why it can or can't work for civilization now. This is just my opinon. If you think I'm off my rocker, please tell me. I'm just glad you said it was a sub-heading.
I agree with you. Comparisons can often be biased by different factors such as the time, values and external information that were not existing or even linked to the historical facts being analysed. The 5 W's can be a way to maintain a kind of objective analysis but no historians can escape from his civilisation (his time). After all, that's why History is part of what is called Human Sciences.
