- This topic has 5 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am currently taking a World history survey course and one of the sentences in an essay I have to read this week struck me. Here it is:
Depending on their original area orientation, global and comparative historians adopt these approaches because they see them as the most effective way of bringing the experience of the “people without history” into the mainstream of teaching and scholarship, of relating the development of Europe to that of the rest of the world, or of challenging the misleading myth of exceptionalism that has dominated so much of the work on the history of the United States.
The phrase "people without history" jumped out at me and got me to wondering. What and who are the "people without history" and why are they like that. My guess is that he is referencing the common man or small states that are often ignored in most histories or only treated peripherally at best as being ?people without history?. I would say they are so because their individual actions did not shape events like those of an Alexander or a Caesar. Individually most people do not make history so much as take part in it. Their individual stories do not tell us a lot about why events happen the way they did. That is why they are ignored.Whether this should be so is probably another argument altogether. I would say that while it may be intellectually stimulating or even interesting to read the life story of a washerwoman in 19th century London, it tells us little if anything about the progress of the industrial revolution or the development of English constitutionalism. For the most part it is simply not productive to the understanding of world events to know everyone?s story. Exceptions to this do exist for example; stories of slave life can help explain the revulsion of northern abolitionists for slavery. Similarly slave stories from ancient Rome can help explain the outbreak of the Spartacan slave revolt or stories from Greek soldiers in Alexander?s army can explain their refusal to continue campaigning. But in these examples a representative sample is all that is required and they are exceptions.For the most part "people without history" are that way because their stories, while individually compelling, do not help to explain the march of history in any significant way.I will not get into what I think of the idea that American exceptionalism is a "myth".
My guess is that he is referencing the common man or small states that are often ignored in most histories or only treated peripherally at best as being ?people without history?.
I think the quote is referring to the latter of what you are saying (the "small states", or smaller cultures), rather than the former (the "common man"), since the sentence uses words like "Europe to that of the rest of the world", "exceptionalism", and "comparative historians". This is where historians who take a postcolonial methodology come in. Here is the definition of postcolonialism, adopted from my own notes (reference Anne D'Alleva): "The postcolonial methodology examines relationships between cultures which have been influenced by colonization, migration, trade, and other forms of exchange. This method puts much focus on the experiences of marginalized or ?ordinary? people from subordinate cultures that are affected by dominant cultures."This type of approach to history looks to the experience of the African slave in the 1850s, the Native American in the 1880s, the gypsy of today, and so forth. In my opinion, it can he a helpful way of learning aspects of history not widely known but it is often clouded by political overtones which aim to affect contemporary social change. It's been an approach to history that has been growing, especially since the 1970s.
I would say that while it may be intellectually stimulating or even interesting to read the life story of a washerwoman in 19th century London, it tells us little if anything about the progress of the industrial revolution or the development of English constitutionalism.
Ok, I will disagree with you to an extent. Considering the plight of a series of washerwomen in 19th century London can be very revealing about the Industrial Revolution because it may bring to light many details that can change the way we look at it. In fact, I think that this happens quite frequently when we see stories about individual commoners which challenges preconceived notions about how they lived. But I should add that learning the history of the washerwoman of the 19th century has importance outside the context of simply learning about the Industrial Revolution.I will agree with you, though, that learning this type of history probably isn't going to shed much light on English government or its international policies. I have trouble saying that one area of history is more "important" than another, simply because it begs the question of relativity - important to whom? Why ought people learn history in the first place?
I am familiar with the post-colonial thread of historiography. I also find it irritating because I am a guns & trumpets type of historian.I agree with your second point to an extent. Learning individual histories is somewhat revealing. I think though that focusing too much, so called "micro-history" ignores the point. Except for the "great" people individuals have very little impact on the wider world. I think that where history comes into its own is documenting and attempting to explain the larger trends in human society. If we focus too much on the individual or little people we start delving into psychology and sociology and get away from true history. This is almost part of the archaeology and anthropology debate we have had on other threads. Where does history stop and other disciplines begin? This also starts to beg the question of whether history is or should be a separate discipline? I am not arguing for a bright shining line that says history stops here, I just think in some respects history of sort is in danger of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
I will agree that learning “macro-history” is important in giving context and is generally the best for students, but even this has to be taken with some relativity. The kind of history taught to students in New Zealand may very well be considered “micro-history” in some respects to students in the United States, but it will be quite important that the New Zealanders learn their own history and their place in the world. Likewise, if I were African American, I would probably place a high value on learning the history of my ancestors and community even though they may not have been “impact players” throughout history. I wouldn't say that learning the history of a narrow or underrepresented group of people necessarily leads to psychology, anthropology, etc. True, it can, simply because we're sometimes dealing with things on the individual level. But I think it's history all the same, and it helps to fill out our knowledge so that we find more meaning in learning from the past.
For all the hype, history is just what one group thinks is interesting enough (about themselves or other) to record. 😉
I just simply do not buy the post-colonial argument that it is equally worthy to study everything. This idea is patently false, there is no way that the history of 17th century southern Africa is as important as the History of 17th Century Europe. One had a global impact the other did not. While African history may be important for Africans, it is relatively unimportant in the wider scale of things because Africans had little impact outside of Africa. That is true even with the slave trade, the slave trade was driven by Europeans, not Africans. At best, African slaves were passive actors or victims. They are only relevant in connection with the actions of European slave traders. That in a nutshell is my biggest problem with post-colonialist history and probably why I will never manage to make academic history a career. I simply do not have it in me to keep my views to myself when I hear people spout something that I consider idiocy. Post-colonialism is right up there with post-modernism in my book. Both are symptoms of the same disease. I have never been the type to go along to get along.
I think it all boils down to why people study history in the first place. It's a basic question but very relevant to this thread. I personally think it's somewhat relative. I say “somewhat” because I think that in order to become good citizens, students ought to learn world history…but in order to become good family members, or good members of one's ethnic group, it might be arguably more important for that person to learn the history of his own closely-knit group. Is it more important for the 12th grade Native American, who will not go on to college, to learn the history of France in the 13th century or to learn the history of his own tribe? I don't think we have to answer the question.
Isn't delving into sociology a good way to see the hows and whys the major players interracted (or even adopted some practices/cultures) with others? I think looking into the “people without history” is a good way to look at some things, like religious history for example. We don't have many historical records of Native Americans, but they sure affected the early European settlers and colonists in a major way.
It depends, we should study thse things in a broad sense that have had a major impact on the society in which we live. To be honest, regardless of ethnicity, in the US at least, European history has a whole lot more to do with the way current American society is structured than do tribal practices of just about any native Indian tribe. I did not make it that way, but that is the world we live in. I am not saying neglect these other histories, I am just saying that in the greater scheme of things it is not as important to understand where the indians came from as it is to understand where the colonists came from. The colonists shaped America much more than the natives did.
While I disagree that Alex Haley first said it… winners write the history*.*Having thrown away many of my notes from teaching I'm without a source for this old concept; likely it wouldn't have been the originator either 😉
I am not saying neglect these other histories, I am just saying that in the greater scheme of things it is not as important to understand where the indians came from as it is to understand where the colonists came from. The colonists shaped America much more than the natives did.
I guess I see that as a value judgment, and goes back to my previous question: what is the point of studying history in the first place? I simply think the point may be different for different people.
Isn't delving into sociology a good way to see the hows and whys the major players interracted (or even adopted some practices/cultures) with others? I think looking into the "people without history" is a good way to look at some things, like religious history for example. We don't have many historical records of Native Americans, but they sure affected the early European settlers and colonists in a major way.
Interesting - why is it that you bring up sociology? I think that "people without a history" is a term to be taken in quotes....obviously every group has a history, it's just that not all have been documented to the same degree or written about in the same amount by historians. I think that it's an area of that is attractive to historians now partly because it gives them a chance to mark their claim by doing something which is entirely new.I think that postcolonialism is good to a certain extent. Yes, the history books are normally written from the perspective of the "winners", and so the side of the "losers" is not always told. I think that makes for interesting and illuminating history reading. On the other hand, postcolonialism is bad - dare I say "dangerous" - when it is used as a means of socio-political change, when it is used to put people on a guilt trip, and so forth.
Here is an example of a 70,000 years old person “without history” … now just a memoryhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8498534.stm
On the other hand, postcolonialism is bad - dare I say "dangerous" - when it is used as a means of socio-political change, when it is used to put people on a guilt trip, and so forth.
That is the core of my problem with much of modern scholarship, it is not about the truth so much as about making some kind of political or moral point. See my signature for my ideal. While I may not always attain objectivity and recognize that, it the goal for which I strive in my own writing. Historians should not try to grind an axe when they write.
Here is an example of a 70,000 years old person "without history" ... now just a memoryhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8498534.stm
You do realize that it is probably inevitable that eventually everybody will speak the same language? Globalization is only hastening that process, it will probably be English because English is the most plastic language there is.
