This is great! As a history teacher at a classical Christian school this is constantly my aim! My 7th and 8th graders are just finishing a thesis making an argument for what made a good Roman. They had to look at all the individuals we studied throughout the year and give evidence for the most common moral virtues. Within the paper they had to include an argument as to why these virtues are still something to strive for today.
Often one of the challenges in history is that it’s often one-sided - many conflicts are simplistically broken down to simple battles between good guys and bad guys when in fact events are often highly nuanced and complex (like the US civil war). Also much of history is memory-holed, like the Holdomor during which millions of Orthodox Christians starved to death from a man-made famine. Or the virtual genocide/ethnic cleansing of the German populations post WW2 by the allies.
Persecutions come in all shapes and forms yet mainstream ‘history’ can lack ‘inclusivity’ when ‘teaching’ us about past sufferings and the lessons to be learned. Reasons for conflict come in seemingly many forms but one force is always present to profit: banks
Nor is history ‘settled’ as new sources become known (soviet archives for instance) which shed a new light on historical events, and if ever we hear the truth of JKF, RFK, MLK (and CIA, Mossad in general) no doubt our collective understanding of recent history and why the world is as it is will change.
So yes! Let’s understand history so we can understand power, what makes it, where it’s wielded, and for what purpose - because I believe there’s a thread throughout history which connects all the dots leading us to the ultimate end game.
So much of this resinates with me (a historian). I used to get so frustrated when reading the "latest research" and it was just academics arguing over some new terminology. It felt very hollow and purposeless. As a creative, history is a well of inspiration because it's the stories of people.
When I lived in Switzerland, the different history teachers had us memorise dates of battles, of events, of births, and of deaths. Boring? Never! For we also read reports, letters, publications, testimonies, even whole documents like 'The Book Of The Dead', 'De Bello Gallico', 'Italienische Reise'. Some eye opener. We flinched when, by turns, we read about the battle of Agincourt, with the Welsh arrows penetrating the enemies' limbs, trunks, and ... lips! Ooouuuch!!!
I believe history is memory. It is a memory passed down from one generation to the next. I know some people think that those memories change over time, but if we respect the past, they respect the stories that our elders and ancestors shared with us.
You don't mention the Bible, which is also a history book. Or should I say History book with a capital H, the over-arching theme of which (by my reading) is the long human struggle from servitude to freedom. The Western concept of historical Progress (with a capital P) would not exist were it not for the Bible. Nor would our modern liberal ideals of freedom, justice, and human equality as we conceive of them in the West. In fact, unless I am greatly mistaken, when you get right down to it the Bible is the primary document of our whole culture and civilization.
Thanks. Of course, I am also on board with everything your are saying.
Without necessarily agreeing with the overall hypothesis, in a future post you might do a deep dive into some of the issues I raise this paper: https://shorturl.at/n6a2E
It's the first of the three "uneasy pieces" in my book, "Three Uneasy Pieces (about the Bible and History)" which you also might enjoy:
Argument by assertion. But you are right about one thing. Every human society and every civilization without exception has a culture of some kind on which it depends for survival, some better than others in my personal opinion. We are cultural animals by our very nature, which is closely tied to our ability to speak and to write.
I would also point out that a culture--any culture--that is not transmitted from one generation to the next will quickly disappear.
That's the problem that we in the West are facing right now.
This is a very weird article that encouraged me to unsubscribe. History can encompass documentary history (i.e. the facts, figures and recording of events), critical re-evaluations and the sort of moral education you lionize. If you want to highlight some important elements of moral teaching to learn from ancient Greek and Roman historians, then just write an article about that. Nevermind that I fundamentally disagree with your depiction of ancient writers as "never reckless with the truth" when much of their writing (while explainable) was centrally concerned with documenting the history of the world through a lens of Greek/Roman superiority. There's just no need to take potshots at an entire discipline, especially when that discipline has never been more concerned with questions of power, nuance and reciprocity.
I agree with you, history has been written by the winners to glorify themselves and justify their violent past. Therefore, that’s why what we need right now is to reconsider the narratives we used to know, challenge those and dismantle facts from power dynamics embedded in those narratives. Using Roman history as an evidence for this article is weird because the discipline itself started as Classics to justify imperialism and the colonial project of the British Empire. It started to promote elitism in the US as well (which came with lack of inclusivity and inequality of perspectives in the field even now). Before that, Roman history wasn’t even in the mainstream academic attention, besides Christian studies. Therefore, using Roman history as an example is like … “let’s go back to the old day of imperialism, slavery and colonialism where we idolize imperialist lords and Roman/Greek men with superiority complex in their time” 🤨
You run the risk of "golden age" thinking. "Things were better in the past..." They usually weren't, or at least not for everyone... We want to get the details right as far as possible. Let inspiration flow from a real context...
I’m not sure I agree at all. We best learn from history when we understand it as clearly as possible, the facts in their complexity. There is room for editorialising, posing questions, putting behaviours in the context of the times as best we are able, but we should not confuse the editorialising with the history….
The article makes very clear that they find the current study of history impotent and overly concerned with evidence-based research. And that history and documentary evidence should merely be a tool to proselytize moral teachings. Your reading of the article is far too charitable.
Everything is history, of one sort or another. Even fictional novels, dramas, tv, etc, all history. All tell us something about the era that they were created in. The further back we go usually the less we really know. We can just guess from archaeological finds and in some cases ancient forms of writing or pictoral evidence. But it still only gives us a glimpse. We only have to think of our own individual lives. How many family anecdotes or intimate memories paint a picture that usually only our innermost family members know, and yet they never know everything about us. How much is lost when we die? Imagine that multiplied as history through the ages. And we view eveything in our world and history in particular through our own 'presentism' and our own personalities. Our own beliefs and fears, society's beliefs and fears, cloud our view of histories, of 'evidence'. We often see what we want, or expect, to see.
As someone who was fascinated by history, read it at university, and continues to be fascinated by the past, I sympathise with this view. The academic subject was already becoming painfully dull when I started my degree what seems a long time ago now with every tiny aspect from every perspective seemingly having to be considered save the big and often obvious picture.
I spend my working days elevating “community history” alongside of major historical events/narratives of my ancestral home on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.
I’m often driven by the idea for history to inspire and shape our future. Furthermore, I’m of the belief that family history and anecdotal recollections are just as important as the facts that are presented in institutions or museums at “true history.” We talk about Frederick Douglass who was born and escaped from slavery in the county I live in—I can’t help but think of the other family narratives occurring during that same time. I have a responsibility to it make those known…and often, it’s those highly localized narratives that helps everyday people engage with history enthusiastically.
All to say, your beginning statements resonated most with me: “It favors records over recollections, footnotes over feeling. A good historian, we’re told, must be dispassionate and detached; more interested in grain yields and archival minutiae than in the moral weight of a single life.
But the thing is, nothing could be farther from the truth. History was never meant to be a science, but a torch, used to light the way forward by the examples of those who came before us.”
A well written, engaging piece. I agree with the author's sentiments wholeheartedly. Interestingly, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about this in the late 19th Century in his criminally neglected short book, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life. Highly recommended to anyone interested in the philosophy of history.
Very interesting post. I have often found it frustrating how the best sources we have of ancient history are so largely fictitious. I think there is a great deal of worth in concretizing history and establishing verifiable data. Although, to combine approaches, we must also be mindful of the humans behind the facts. Data is helpful because it’s (ideally) objective. And we have often fallen into projecting our own beliefs and contexts onto history, and thereby often misunderstanding it. But, as you interestingly point out, this is what people have always done.
In order to find the real history you need to see what histories those people told themselves. It’s always one step removed. Which paints the study of history in a challenging but intriguing light.
This is great! As a history teacher at a classical Christian school this is constantly my aim! My 7th and 8th graders are just finishing a thesis making an argument for what made a good Roman. They had to look at all the individuals we studied throughout the year and give evidence for the most common moral virtues. Within the paper they had to include an argument as to why these virtues are still something to strive for today.
Sending this to everyone who asked why I majored in history at university 🥹 thank you!
Often one of the challenges in history is that it’s often one-sided - many conflicts are simplistically broken down to simple battles between good guys and bad guys when in fact events are often highly nuanced and complex (like the US civil war). Also much of history is memory-holed, like the Holdomor during which millions of Orthodox Christians starved to death from a man-made famine. Or the virtual genocide/ethnic cleansing of the German populations post WW2 by the allies.
Persecutions come in all shapes and forms yet mainstream ‘history’ can lack ‘inclusivity’ when ‘teaching’ us about past sufferings and the lessons to be learned. Reasons for conflict come in seemingly many forms but one force is always present to profit: banks
Nor is history ‘settled’ as new sources become known (soviet archives for instance) which shed a new light on historical events, and if ever we hear the truth of JKF, RFK, MLK (and CIA, Mossad in general) no doubt our collective understanding of recent history and why the world is as it is will change.
So yes! Let’s understand history so we can understand power, what makes it, where it’s wielded, and for what purpose - because I believe there’s a thread throughout history which connects all the dots leading us to the ultimate end game.
Very well said, Kristi.
So much of this resinates with me (a historian). I used to get so frustrated when reading the "latest research" and it was just academics arguing over some new terminology. It felt very hollow and purposeless. As a creative, history is a well of inspiration because it's the stories of people.
When I lived in Switzerland, the different history teachers had us memorise dates of battles, of events, of births, and of deaths. Boring? Never! For we also read reports, letters, publications, testimonies, even whole documents like 'The Book Of The Dead', 'De Bello Gallico', 'Italienische Reise'. Some eye opener. We flinched when, by turns, we read about the battle of Agincourt, with the Welsh arrows penetrating the enemies' limbs, trunks, and ... lips! Ooouuuch!!!
I believe history is memory. It is a memory passed down from one generation to the next. I know some people think that those memories change over time, but if we respect the past, they respect the stories that our elders and ancestors shared with us.
You don't mention the Bible, which is also a history book. Or should I say History book with a capital H, the over-arching theme of which (by my reading) is the long human struggle from servitude to freedom. The Western concept of historical Progress (with a capital P) would not exist were it not for the Bible. Nor would our modern liberal ideals of freedom, justice, and human equality as we conceive of them in the West. In fact, unless I am greatly mistaken, when you get right down to it the Bible is the primary document of our whole culture and civilization.
Would love your reaction.
Thanks. Of course, I am also on board with everything your are saying.
Without necessarily agreeing with the overall hypothesis, in a future post you might do a deep dive into some of the issues I raise this paper: https://shorturl.at/n6a2E
It's the first of the three "uneasy pieces" in my book, "Three Uneasy Pieces (about the Bible and History)" which you also might enjoy:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08PLX2W61
For your convenience I'll make it temporarily available on Kindle.
Argument by assertion. But you are right about one thing. Every human society and every civilization without exception has a culture of some kind on which it depends for survival, some better than others in my personal opinion. We are cultural animals by our very nature, which is closely tied to our ability to speak and to write.
I would also point out that a culture--any culture--that is not transmitted from one generation to the next will quickly disappear.
That's the problem that we in the West are facing right now.
This is a very weird article that encouraged me to unsubscribe. History can encompass documentary history (i.e. the facts, figures and recording of events), critical re-evaluations and the sort of moral education you lionize. If you want to highlight some important elements of moral teaching to learn from ancient Greek and Roman historians, then just write an article about that. Nevermind that I fundamentally disagree with your depiction of ancient writers as "never reckless with the truth" when much of their writing (while explainable) was centrally concerned with documenting the history of the world through a lens of Greek/Roman superiority. There's just no need to take potshots at an entire discipline, especially when that discipline has never been more concerned with questions of power, nuance and reciprocity.
I agree with you, history has been written by the winners to glorify themselves and justify their violent past. Therefore, that’s why what we need right now is to reconsider the narratives we used to know, challenge those and dismantle facts from power dynamics embedded in those narratives. Using Roman history as an evidence for this article is weird because the discipline itself started as Classics to justify imperialism and the colonial project of the British Empire. It started to promote elitism in the US as well (which came with lack of inclusivity and inequality of perspectives in the field even now). Before that, Roman history wasn’t even in the mainstream academic attention, besides Christian studies. Therefore, using Roman history as an example is like … “let’s go back to the old day of imperialism, slavery and colonialism where we idolize imperialist lords and Roman/Greek men with superiority complex in their time” 🤨
Tad bit hyperpolic
Hot house flower fiercely objects to observer noticing the dispossession of history by anti Western ideologues and pedants
Oh please.
And I’m not surprised the author is a white man 🤨
You run the risk of "golden age" thinking. "Things were better in the past..." They usually weren't, or at least not for everyone... We want to get the details right as far as possible. Let inspiration flow from a real context...
I’m not sure I agree at all. We best learn from history when we understand it as clearly as possible, the facts in their complexity. There is room for editorialising, posing questions, putting behaviours in the context of the times as best we are able, but we should not confuse the editorialising with the history….
Not sure he said anything to the contrary.
He was however commenting on the current trend to dismantle the past.
I suspect he would wholeheartedly agree with your premise on what history is meant to do. He is simply adding another aspect
The article makes very clear that they find the current study of history impotent and overly concerned with evidence-based research. And that history and documentary evidence should merely be a tool to proselytize moral teachings. Your reading of the article is far too charitable.
Everything is history, of one sort or another. Even fictional novels, dramas, tv, etc, all history. All tell us something about the era that they were created in. The further back we go usually the less we really know. We can just guess from archaeological finds and in some cases ancient forms of writing or pictoral evidence. But it still only gives us a glimpse. We only have to think of our own individual lives. How many family anecdotes or intimate memories paint a picture that usually only our innermost family members know, and yet they never know everything about us. How much is lost when we die? Imagine that multiplied as history through the ages. And we view eveything in our world and history in particular through our own 'presentism' and our own personalities. Our own beliefs and fears, society's beliefs and fears, cloud our view of histories, of 'evidence'. We often see what we want, or expect, to see.
As someone who was fascinated by history, read it at university, and continues to be fascinated by the past, I sympathise with this view. The academic subject was already becoming painfully dull when I started my degree what seems a long time ago now with every tiny aspect from every perspective seemingly having to be considered save the big and often obvious picture.
I spend my working days elevating “community history” alongside of major historical events/narratives of my ancestral home on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.
I’m often driven by the idea for history to inspire and shape our future. Furthermore, I’m of the belief that family history and anecdotal recollections are just as important as the facts that are presented in institutions or museums at “true history.” We talk about Frederick Douglass who was born and escaped from slavery in the county I live in—I can’t help but think of the other family narratives occurring during that same time. I have a responsibility to it make those known…and often, it’s those highly localized narratives that helps everyday people engage with history enthusiastically.
All to say, your beginning statements resonated most with me: “It favors records over recollections, footnotes over feeling. A good historian, we’re told, must be dispassionate and detached; more interested in grain yields and archival minutiae than in the moral weight of a single life.
But the thing is, nothing could be farther from the truth. History was never meant to be a science, but a torch, used to light the way forward by the examples of those who came before us.”
A well written, engaging piece. I agree with the author's sentiments wholeheartedly. Interestingly, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about this in the late 19th Century in his criminally neglected short book, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life. Highly recommended to anyone interested in the philosophy of history.
Very interesting post. I have often found it frustrating how the best sources we have of ancient history are so largely fictitious. I think there is a great deal of worth in concretizing history and establishing verifiable data. Although, to combine approaches, we must also be mindful of the humans behind the facts. Data is helpful because it’s (ideally) objective. And we have often fallen into projecting our own beliefs and contexts onto history, and thereby often misunderstanding it. But, as you interestingly point out, this is what people have always done.
In order to find the real history you need to see what histories those people told themselves. It’s always one step removed. Which paints the study of history in a challenging but intriguing light.
Really enjoyed this take! Applied history towards moral development, social values etc. Lots of value there, great piece!