- This topic has 4 voices and 17 replies.
-
Posts
-
Historians and students of History owe their knowledge of the past to those who were thoughtful and visionary enough to leave a written record for posterity. Biographies, autobiographies, diaries, tracts, pamphlets, ledgers, archives, transcripts, manuscripts etc…are the treasure trove of the historian. Without them, he is dependent upon the anthropologist and archaeologist to fill in the gaps. Though anthropologists and archaeologists are very useful to the historian, they are not equipped in their respective backgrounds to interpret, analyze, and narrate the events of history as told by those who lived out the events. Historians are charged with the duty of capturing the spirit of the time, restoring the ambiance that pervaded, and transferring the experience to subsequent students and readers in a manner that offers both the appreciation and understanding of the past. Source materials come in many forms, and the more diverse they are, the more complete and thorough they can be in aiding the student of History in understanding critical details that otherwise would never be brought to light. Most university professors design their courses to involve a hands on approach to learning via reading primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are materials left from the era being studied. Primary sources can include diaries, manuscripts, pictures, paintings, artifacts, letters, memoirs, government records, ledgers, pamphlets, tracts, and books authored by historical figures whether prominent or obscure during their time period. Secondary sources are usually the scholarly work of researchers who have labored in their respective interpretations of primary sources, and are used as citable sources in ongoing research. Both kinds of sources are valuable, but without primary sources, historians have no foundation from which to work. It is very important for the serious student of History to be able to find primary sources, and once found, he must be able to use them effectively in research. Strong reading comprehension skills are a must, and also a penchant for knowing what sources are most useful in the construction of a working thesis. Only exposure to writing styles, cultural nuances, and miscellaneous other facets exhibited from past figures help the aspiring historian master his craft.
Don, I really hope you are planning on going into academia. I do kind of wish you would see your way to stop slamming archaeology and anthropology so much though.
Don, I really hope you are planning on going into academia. I do kind of wish you would see your way to stop slamming archaeology and anthropology so much though.
I'm not slamming them really. They have their place. My prejudices are limited to method approach only.
Isnt that kind of irrelevant? I agree that historians should not rely on another discipline for primary material, but they are a useful adjunct to enhance historical understanding. I am just trying to say that you often come off as extremely critical of using the fruits of any other discipline in historical study. But then, maybe I am not making my point very well. :-
Isnt that kind of irrelevant? I agree that historians should not rely on another discipline for primary material, but they are a useful adjunct to enhance historical understanding. I am just trying to say that you often come off as extremely critical of using the fruits of any other discipline in historical study. But then, maybe I am not making my point very well. :-
No no, I understand what you're saying. It's just my professors have scolded me time and time again for using sources out of discipline when they KNOW that other history related sources would be better. They beat that in my head quite thoroughly.
I have had the opposite experience. I have continually been told to consider all available evidence while keeping the primary focus of historical narrative the use of primary and secondary docuentary evidence.BTW, anthropological evidence is particularly useful to refute the more outrageous claims of the "social" historians.
But many if not most anthropologists are lefties themselves. I guess I abhor them because of their staunch promotion of evolution.
I am trying to avoid political generalizations. I do agree with you about their politics, that applies across most of academia though. Just because they are mostly kool-aid drinkers doesnt mean they don't occasionaly come up with useful results, in their raw data if nowhere esle.
Okay I concede their work is indispensable in topics such as the Powhatan Indians (I have a book on them that is heavily anthropological in nature). The Powhatan were very mysterious and the early colonies of Roanoke and Jamestown did not leave us much in the written record about them, and the Powhatan themselves left us nothing.
They are not the preferred source but sometimes they are necessary. You could even say a necessary evil. 🙂
I am kind of late to this discussion but it is my understanding that the historian's domain is the interpretation of text, the archaeologist's is the interpretation of the artifact, the art historian's is the work of art, the architectural historian's is the work or architecture, and the anthropologist's is…the behavior? Anyway, excluding the last of these for the moment…no field is “better” than the other as they each have their own focus. Often times these require taking information from related fields, but technically one's expertise is confined to one's own field.
These people are kool-aid drinkers, they illustrate the concept perfectly: Broadband, Yes. Toilet, No. It is fitting that this is in the NY Times of all papers, definiteley fits the sterotype of their kind of journalism..My great-grandpa didn't have running water or an indoor toilet either. He called them newfangled inventions that he did not need. But then he was born in 1871 and died in 1977 at the ripe old age of 106. He also fought against Spain in the Phillipines and chased indians in his 20's so I would not classify him as a kool-aid drinker.
These people are kool-aid drinkers, they illustrate the concept perfectly: Broadband, Yes. Toilet, No. It is fitting that this is in the NY Times of all papers, definiteley fits the sterotype of their kind of journalism..My great-grandpa didn't have running water or an indoor toilet either. He called them newfangled inventions that he did not need. But then he was born in 1871 and died in 1977 at the ripe old age of 106. He also fought against Spain in the Phillipines and chased indians in his 20's so I would not classify him as a kool-aid drinker.
Wait - I'm not understanding how these people are "kool-aid drinkers". Yes, they seem to be eccentric, but from what I got out of the story it was out of their own choice because that's how they want to live. It would be different if they were doing it because they were trying to promote it as an "eco-friendly" l lifestyle or whatever, but it seems like it's just the way they want to live. I can't say I'd want to live like they do, but if it's their personal choice I don't have a problem with it. Or was there something else that I missed in the story?
If you read deeper into the story, they are promoting their kind of life-style as being a preferred method. That is one of the reasons they agreed to the story in the first place. Here is the relevant quote:
Their treks are made not only for pleasure but on behalf of Ground Truth Trekking, the nonprofit group they founded. Through this organization, the couple hope to raise awareness of environmental issues across the state by visiting contentious sites like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They also consult for environmental organizations and run Sundrop Jewelry, an accessories business. Though their combined yearly income is around $25,000, the two say that their living expenses are slightly more than half that.
The website to their NGO is pretty illuminating too: Ground Truth Trekking I think it is kind of disingenous that they set up a non-profit to essentially earn a living tax-free. I wonder about the legality of it too.
