- This topic has 9 voices and 56 replies.
-
Posts
-
I was referring to the example you gave in regard to the slavery issue, which seems to be distinctively post-colonialist in what you described. But in general, I agree with you that post-colonialism is but one of a variety of historical methodologies which are rooted in socio-politics and can infect historical studies.
Ski,Here is a good example of what I am talking about when I say good historical narrative does not have to be dry. The Growth of the French Nation: George Adams This book was written in 1896 and I happen to have a hardcopy of it but it is availabl online at the posted link. I just ask you to read a few pages, I reccomend parts of Chap. XIV. This book and Mr. Adams writing style are exactly what I am talking about when I talk about good history.Perhaps my choice of the word bias was not entirely correct. The more I think about it, the proper word for what I am advocating is balance. I think Historians should present the facts in as balanced and unbiased a manner as possible. But I think that balance is the key. There are exceptions to every rule, but I think striving for balance is the best way to write substantive, useful history.I would also say there are some subjects that authors simply cannot write about in an unemotional tone. The holocaust and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are good examples of this. Almost everyone has an opinion about these things and we do take our prejudices to our histories even if we try our best to minimize their influence. Our own prejudices can never be completely eliminated from our work. this is one reason I would never attempt an academic history of Israel, my own opinions are too strong.
I was reading a book review tonight that made me think of this discussion thread, and I wanted to add a bit. The review in question was written by Robert Bateman, professor of military history at Georgetown University and author of the book No Gun Ri; a Military History of the Korean War Incident. The review was of Robert Mrazek's A Dawn Like Thunder; The True Story of Torpedo Squadron Eight. Mrazek was a Navy veteran whose father served under Admiral Mistcher, was a journalist who became a Congressman from NY for 10 years and the author of three military novels. A Dawn Like Thunder is his first work of miltary non-fiction.Anyway, in praising Mrazek's current book, Bateman states: "Academically trained historians too often reduce gripping events to soul-parching compilations of cautious statementsthat only the most generous might grace wit hteh term 'narrative.' On the flip side, journalists attempting to write works of history sometimes jettison their skepticism; the result is often a great story but not very good history." Equally appropo to this discussion, he says that Mrazek tells "... the story of Torpedo Eight and the war in the Pacific as it was, not as some might wish it had been."Now, while the review makes me want to read the book - although it will have to take second place to George Gay's Sole Survivor for the history of Torpedo Eight's ill fated attack at Midway. But my point in posting this is more than just the discussion of the tendency of academic historians to write in a "soul-parching" style (I love that term -- soul-parching). I also wanted to seek comment on journalists who write history. Some, like war correspondants such as Ernie Pyle and Richard Tregaskis are recording history, but are almost excused for "jettison[ing] their skepticism. Others, such as Thomas Ricks continue to wave their partisan political flags and Mark Bowden bring humanity of the participants to the forefront (I'm not sure that Blackhawk Down qualifies as history, but maybe I'm too close to it to be objective). Then there is Rick Atkinson's two-thirds complete trilogy, which I think bridges that gap between academic history and journalism -- highly readable and well researched. I think as students of history (I really can't refer to myself as a historian) we should seek to reach that balance. To tell the story in a highly readable manner, but with impeccable research. Obviously, much easier said than done.Thoughts?
It must be difficult for soldiers to remove their patriotic fervor and susceptibility to soul parch when writing histories about events dear to their hearts. I can almost excuse them, but alas I cannot. 🙂 On second thought maybe I can excuse Audie Murphy, but no one else. 🙂
I think as students of history (I really can't refer to myself as a historian) we should seek to reach that balance. To tell the story in a highly readable manner, but with impeccable research. Obviously, much easier said than done.
This is exactly what I have been talking about.
I'm wondering, since this thread's last post, has anyone changed their views any on the nature and structure of academic History writing? Has anyone run into any of the issues that have been brought up here? Has a professor scolded you for straying off topic, writing too fancifully, or foisting personal bias? Just curious because I think this is one of the most important threads posted on WCF. We all have to come to terms with the best way to present the historical narrative, and the more we can help each other to do that, the more productive our experience in the field will be.
My views have remained the same. I have run into the issue of political bias in the World History course I am taking. I have to say it is difficult for me to write what I consider “activist” history. I despise being forced to take a political side when writing history, I would rather write narrative history than interpretive history that tries to lay blame for injustice on some person or group.
Another interesting point of view :History, with rose-tinted hindsight :Is the teaching of history about chronology and narrative, or about analysis and structure, or about information and detail, or about imagination and empathy, or about a combination of some or all of these things?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8762969.stm
Some would say that what they Russians are doing in commissioning a new textbook is no different than what the Texas Board of Education did recently in revising their state history standards. I would not be among them, I would argue that what Texas and Russia did are two different things entirely. One tries to rewrite history and insert politics while the other tries to eliminate politics and insert more balance. the argument commences when we argue the metaphysics of the approaches. I have and will continue to argue that if we are teching our young people correctly they will draw their own conclusions without us having to force-feed them opinions and propaganda in school. History is narrative and not editorials; the facts actually can and do speak for themselves.. No three people will ever agree on what the proper thing to teach is.
Tip no. 8 is essential to deliver a more clear information and create a good comprehension with the readers.
The best History writers are the ones who can stay on topic by avoiding long winded tangents.For this time many persons are different type of writing and other skills uses any answer.I also like a good one write answer in rules.One rule write English or Urdu clear information shoe in readers.
