- This topic has 3 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
If I'm way off the wall here, then tell me.I do not agree at all with this quote for a number of reasons, and I don't think historians should have this attitude. Maybe some things that we consider "good" now didn't or couldn't work in the past, and vice versa for various reasons. (higher or lower populations, types of economy, religious beliefs, etc) I really think this statement is a moral judgment that we should not make.Two things come to mind. The NY Times recently had an article about how Obama is like Hitler, but they wrote it in a good way. The author knew the past and knew the results of the Weimer Republic, but still said that Obama's policies are similar. So this author knows history and knows the past, but what the heck is he thinking?!? He knows the past yet is STILL doomed to repeat it because he thinks it is OK.Another example is the homosexuality in Greece. Why can't a historian just write about it without making a moral judgment? It's not condoning homosexual behavior, it is just "telling it like it is" without making a judgment. Do we condemn ancient Greek culture or history because homosexuality was rampant? I think not! It was an accepted part of their society. Today, even though gay rights proponents would like us to think otherwise, homosexuality is not an accepted part of society. I don't think the problem is so much in not knowing the past, but it is in viewing the past through today's lens and thinking certain things are good or bad or acceptable or condemned. But even that is inaccurate and it is not the job of the historian. Like I said earlier, things we would consider foolish or wrong nowadays worked, but they won't work now. And even some things in history we consider good in a moral sense may not or could not work for society today.
There are a few problems I see here, and one of them is that people will praise or condemn the past in a vacuum. Next time you hear praise of Greek society for its views on homosexuality, bring up the point about how it related to misogyny or even chauvinism. You can't really have the one without the other, so do you praise them both? Condemn them both?
I would just try to tell both as it is without any condemnation. I've never come across anyone about this yet, but I'm sure there are some out there who use the Greeks as an example to push for gays in the military because the Greeks had that and were successful. When I told a few guys I work with that I was doing a paper on Greek sports and the Olympics, they all commented on the "gayness" of it because they were all nude. It was not easy to look past that and try to see it (and write it) as it was and what it actually meant. Again, this all has to do with what was considered acceptable at the time.
Ski, this is what i have been arguing for years. Just tell the story of history without pre-judgment.As for the quote, it is true in some respects. The point of history is to learn from the mistakes of others. History is the collective memory of society. The job of the historian is not pass judgment, that is the prerogative of the reader.However, the comparison between Obama and Hitler, whether accurate or not is instructive. Knowing what happened after the populism of Hitler and the consequences of his rise to power. What lesson do we draw from history? The story of Hitler can serve as either a blueprint or warning map depends on the use it is put to. We can choose to use history to argue against or for something. Not everyone thought Hitler was bad, the case with Obama is the same. To what use is history put, that is the point of the quote to me.
Some things in the past are worth repeating. I guess a bigger reason I don't agree with it is because the quote is negative. (I think the actual word is condemned, not doomed)
I would just try to tell both as it is without any condemnation. I've never come across anyone about this yet, but I'm sure there are some out there who use the Greeks as an example to push for gays in the military because the Greeks had that and were successful. When I told a few guys I work with that I was doing a paper on Greek sports and the Olympics, they all commented on the "gayness" of it because they were all nude. It was not easy to look past that and try to see it (and write it) as it was and what it actually meant. Again, this all has to do with what was considered acceptable at the time.
I don't think that "not condemning" or "condemning" makes one unbiased. Bias can also present itself through what one chooses to research or how one does this. I think that historical methodologies that surfaced more in the past 50 years are rooted in political ideology, so they tend to be linked to bias. Then again, they would argue that traditional methods are biased. In the end, I don't think one can really eliminate all bias, and perhaps that should not be the ultimate concern (note I am not saying this is not a concern at all). Perhaps the focus should instead be balance? Yet balance may be in error as well if attempts to do this give a disproportionately loud voice to those who speak for a sliver of a minority. Ok...more later.
Bias can also present itself through what one chooses to research or how one does this.
This is cultural bias and impossible to eliminate. I do not go so far as to say that what you choose to investigate demnstrates bias, I focus instead on making value judgements in the narrative itself. Comparing the settlers of the American west to the SS for example.I will reiterate. The study of history is important because it can show us individually and collectively how to avoid mistakes made in the past. That is the whole point of the original quote. It is no different than a child learning to not touch the stove when they get burned.
In the end, I don't think one can really eliminate all bias
I agree it is impossible, but maybe something we should strive for? Exceptions would be if you are trying to prove something wrong or right.And I still think the quote has a negative tone because it omits all the good things of the past.
Bias can also present itself through what one chooses to research or how one does this.
This is cultural bias and impossible to eliminate. I do not go so far as to say that what you choose to investigate demnstrates bias, I focus instead on making value judgements in the narrative itself. Comparing the settlers of the American west to the SS for example.
I think that what you call "cultural bias" is a key criticism lodged at traditional historians who have generally followed the paths of rich, white males (though IMO this has been for good reason). But those using feminist, postcolonial, or postmodern methodologies may be guilty of another type of bias. I do not outright reject these newer methodologies (since they can be useful in certain respects) but it should be noted that they are often times rooted in socio-political ideology...and in my book that necessarily raises a red flag and suggests they are often associated with bias. But yes, I do think that value judgment bias is easier to avoid.
I agree it is impossible, but maybe something we should strive for? Exceptions would be if you are trying to prove something wrong or right.And I still think the quote has a negative tone because it omits all the good things of the past.
If you're doing historical research, then yes, it should be something to strive for - to reduce bias. If you're writing a political essay using history, then you'll want to craft your argument appropriately (I'm not saying you make stuff up). But I think that the quote may have a "negative tone" simply because it's supposed to be a warning. I don't think that using that quote means that you don't find positive things in history as well. It simply states a truth which reminds people to look to the past to know what to avoid.
