- This topic has 7 voices and 34 replies.
-
Posts
-
Is it just me, or does anyone feel like this? I'm beginning to dislike when a historian or textbook writer make the claim “so-and-so”, considered by many to be the greatest
of the period.It may very well be true, but I just find this annoying. Maybe it's because my current textbook is doing this often. Let me make my own judgements based on what I read. .... Let me make my own judgements based on what I read.
They are just giving you evidence (biased and partial as it may be 8) ) upon which to make your judgement, eh?
Is it just me, or does anyone feel like this? I'm beginning to dislike when a historian or textbook writer make the claim "so-and-so", considered by many to be the greatest of the period.It may very well be true, but I just find this annoying. Maybe it's because my current textbook is doing this often. Let me make my own judgements based on what I read.
I probably find it more annoying when negative judgments are made of figures of the past, which is easy to do when one is sitting behind their pen, writing in their nice leather chair with hundreds of years of history at their retrospective disposal. However, I don't think this is a practice limited to historians. Go to any news web site where comments may be made on individual stories. Seems to me that whenever there's a story about someone doing something illegal or getting into some unfortunate mistake, there are sanctimonious comments about the person. I think our society just likes to tell people how they should have behaved.
Being both too positive or too negative is annoying. The news doing this I can understand (well, not really, I've just learned to accept it), but I just expect an academic history book wouldn't or shouldn't do something like this. This is really the first time I'm experiencing this, and I'm sure it won't be the last.This concerns me because it makes me wonder if I'm wrong. So a book says, for example only, Pope Urban is the best pope ever. What if I disagree and think Pope Gregory VII was? Does that mean I am in error? This type of judgement also begs the question: Best at what? Best reformer, best organizer, most pious??
So a book says, for example only, Pope Urban is the best pope ever. What if I disagree and think Pope Gregory VII was? Does that mean I am in error? This type of judgement also begs the question: Best at what? Best reformer, best organizer, most pious??
Was that the statement that was made? I wonder how such an unqualified statement would have gotten into final publication, since you are right - best at what? I can see that historians made qualitative judgments of some degree (e.g. possibly "Pope Urban was arguably the most politically-apt of the medieval popes...") but even those can be suspect.
I'll have to look for the exact quote, but it was very similar to: “Pope ???, who many consider the best pope of the Middle Ages…” There was no explanation as to why they consider him the best, nor was there any contextual reason why the author would write this. I just think this whole statement or any statement like this should have been omitted. Statements like "Henry IV, the most powerful king in Europe at that time..." are fine, because that's not a judgement statement (IMO), but saying one pope or ANY person is considered better than another is.
That is common in many history books. Usually I think the Judgment calls are valid but sometimes I don't. I just think you have to have the presence of mind to be aware and decide for yourself. I think historians have been doing that forever. I have a history book written in the mid nineteenth century that makes the claim that Frederick the Great was the best king Prussia ever had and probably ever will have. I agree with it, but that is a pretty bold claim to make when the kingdom in question is still in existence. That is like saying Obama or Bush is the worst president ever. There could always be another that is worse, as much as I hate to say that.
Statements like "Henry IV, the most powerful king in Europe at that time..." are fine, because that's not a judgement statement (IMO), but saying one pope or ANY person is considered better than another is.
Funny, but I got into an argument at IMDB.com about a quote from a movie which stated something like Spain was the most powerful nation in the world in the 16th century. So I think that "most powerful" statements can still lead to controversy. ;D
That is like saying Obama or Bush is the worst president ever. There could always be another that is worse, as much as I hate to say that.
Such statements sound more like political lines to me than realistic assessments of history. I think that there was a rush to call W the "worst president ever" about a year ago, no doubt because by tarnishing his legacy they (attempt to) construct an "evil" figure who can be attacked in the future and create guilt by association.
I'm just thinking about my Greek and Roman books. The authors didn't do this. I remember specifically reading about Augustus and all his accomplishments. There was no “judgement” call, all I remember was going “WOW” after reading about his accomplishments. I didn't need to be told he was a great leader, I determined that myself after reading it. I even started a thread here a while back about him with that very topic.The Henry IV comment I believe was justified because of the context. The author wasn't saying he was the best monarch ever or as of yet, he was just saying that Henry actually was the most powerful king in Europe over that span of a few years he was writing about.
Is it just me, or does anyone feel like this? I'm beginning to dislike when a historian or textbook writer make the claim "so-and-so", considered by many to be the greatest of the period.It may very well be true, but I just find this annoying. Maybe it's because my current textbook is doing this often. Let me make my own judgements based on what I read.
It is annoying and should be avoided in any serious academic writing. It's editorializing more than anything, and wastes the reader's time with platitudes that the historical record can speak for itself.
I don't know, isn't making Judgment calls part of presenting an interpretation? Anyone can be free to disagree with them. I think the important part is presenting the facts. You know what they say about opinions right?
It is annoying and should be avoided in any serious academic writing. It's editorializing more than anything, and wastes the reader's time with platitudes that the historical record can speak for itself.
Based on my experiences many people cannot read history (objective or not) and come away with any idea of the importance of people or events; they have no real foundation to appreciate the historical record and the information there. Schools are far too busy teaching kids to pass a high stakes test... the information they do get is influenced by the agenda of so many groups (all threatening lawsuits if their ox gets gored) that the kids are being filled with PC platitudes.NCLB is failing because it isn't about what the kids need to know to be productive citizens it is about what the gov't wants them to be able to do on those tests. Remember... we test all our kids, other nations only test a small percentage of college bound students. Apples to oranges! No one will ever admit we need to dump this program because they would be accused of wanting to leave some behind... hogwash! Better to get a kid a diploma in plumbing than to have him / her drop out.Jackie Mason was right (those many years ago on the Merv Griffin Show) when he asked, "I ask you; if everybody goes to college, who's gonna wrap da' fish?"
I don't know, isn't making Judgment calls part of presenting an interpretation? Anyone can be free to disagree with them. I think the important part is presenting the facts. You know what they say about opinions right?
You make your "judgments" with your arguments. Expressing blanket statements of approval or disapproval is not helpful and more of a distraction than anything. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you guys are calling "judgments."
If I say Kaiser Wilhelm II was a great German emperor, that is a judgment. But what about when I back up that judgment with facts? You can still disagree with my judgment but in order to do so you must show relevant facts of your own. That is how the great debates in history get started. History would be extremely boring if everybody agreed all the time.
