History


 * History**

History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we made today. Henry Ford

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George SantayanaAlthough history is sometimes considered a human science, it is treated separately because, unlike all the other human sciences, or indeed other sciences in general, knowers cannot directly observe the past. This characteristic of history opens up many questions of knowledge that are unique to it. History reflects an attempt on the part of individuals and communities to understand the temporal nature of human life. “Remembering the past” is never straightforward. Historiography, that is, a study of the writings of history, is not a study of every event that has occurred, but rather a study of those traces that have been deemed relevant and meaningful by historians. The availability of those traces, and their relevance and meaning, may be influenced in many ways, by factors such as ideology, perspective or purpose. As knowers seek to clarify the past, and to determine whether or not what is claimed is true, they will face problems of reliability and attitudes, and may consider the purpose of historical analysis and the issue of the nature of historical truth. The opportunities for distinctions and interpretations that are culturally driven abound, and invite analysis.

**Nature of history**
[|Quotes from different people] [|History is often written from the perspective of the European worldview. There are other stories to be told, though..] [|The Impact of Texas on the teaching of history in the US] [|In the re-writing of its history, Iraq treads cautiously] Why the world needs WiKiLeaks media type="custom" key="6590815"
 * What is history? Is it the study of the past, or the study of records of the past?
 * To what extent is the very nature of this area of knowledge affected by being about the past? In what ways do other areas of knowledge also concern themselves with the past? Is all knowledge, in a sense, historical knowledge?
 * Which of the following is the most persuasive description of history: an account of great individuals, an account of great historical forces, an account of a decline from the greatness of the past, an account of progress towards the future, or a cycle of recurring events? What other descriptions might be appropriate?
 * What is the significance of Carlyle’s view that “The history of the world is but the biography of great men”?
 * What do you understand by George Orwell’s comment that “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past”? To what extent do you agree with it, and its implications?

**History: Methods of gaining knowledge**
It is impossible to write ancient history because we lack source materials, and impossible to write modern history because we have far too many. Charles Péguy [|Journalism and the 'words of power' - how do they affect the recording of history?] [|A Grim Chapter in History Kept Closed - Beijing]
 * Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How far can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
 * In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?
 * What are the implications for historical knowledge of the following claim?
 * Which is the more important attribute of the historian, the ability to analyse evidence scientifically (and so secure the foundations of an argument), or the ability to expand it with creative imagination (and create a living account)?
 * What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understanding of historians, despite or even because of their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
 * How does the context within which historians live affect historical knowledge? To what extent might the position of historians within their own epoch and culture undermine the value of their interpretation, and to what extent might it increase its value in making it relevant to a contemporary audience?
 * What is a historical explanation? How are causal connections between events established in history? According to what criteria can such explanations be critically evaluated?

**History and knowledge claims**
[|The past is the past, and what's done is done. But in that case: what is history?] [|There's no agreed version to it, so how can we trust it?]
 * Why study history? Is it possible to know who we are without a knowledge of the past? Is there any other way of describing and assessing the process of change in human societies?
 * Can history provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs? Can it provide a guide to the future? What might be “the lessons of history” for future generations?
 * If truth is difficult to prove in history, does it follow that all versions are equally acceptable?
 * What knowledge of history might be gained by focusing attention on each of the following: the historian, the historical documents and written history, the readership, and the social, cultural and historical context?

**History and values**
[|How does a Marxist approach History?] [|Is it important to have Black History month in the US?] [|Recording of Martin Luther King]
 * About whom is history written? Are the lives of some groups of people more historically significant than the lives of others? Why do selected past events appear in books as historically important while others are ignored? To what extent is history dependent on who kept or preserved a written record? To what extent is history about those who held power, and to what extent is it about ordinary people?
 * Are value judgments a fault in the writing of history? Should value-laden terms, such as atrocity, regime, hero or freedom, always be avoided, or does exclusion of value judgments deprive history of meaning?
 * To what extent can distinctions be made between factual report, biased interpretation and calculated distortion? Can history be used for propaganda? If so, how?