Writing History
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Literary Pursuits
Forum Discription: all things relating to the written word
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29512
Printed Date: 10-Jun-2024 at 06:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Writing History
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Writing History
Date Posted: 03-May-2011 at 11:15
| What do you think is more useful to the historian? Material Objects or written texts???? |
Replies:
Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 03-May-2011 at 12:01
|
Being there at the time history is being written. Seriously, so much is going on in our lives that will never get in a history book, and it may be more important to change than the things that do get put in history books. Show me the book that explains the date the US federal government mandated all communities provide free public education, and the debates that lead up to the decision. This explanation should go with an explanation of where the text books were printed, and the main purpose of this education and what the south did about it. This explanation of history would help us better understand democracy, and how we are suppose to go about things. I think this would be very meaningful, but have not seen this in a history book? How about a history book that explains the soaring marriage rate as we entered WWII and the soaring divorce rate following the war, and the changes in marriage law making divorce easier and seriously damaging the stability of families? Now add to this, the change in US public education going from liberal education to education for technology, and the social ramifications of this change. If you know of a history book that mentions this, please let me know. I am could be wrong, but I think there is a bias to history books, that presents history in a distorted manner and that there are ramifications to this. I think humanity would greatly benefit from better history books, that include her story. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 03-May-2011 at 12:24
| Definitely written texts. These include original documents from the period which are also artefacts. A good historian uses a diverse range of sources: the opinions of the leading scholars in their field, printed primary sources and personal documents (if available) |
Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 03-May-2011 at 14:04
| That may sound good, but might it be biased? |
Posted By: Tiger of Kai
Date Posted: 03-May-2011 at 15:49
| Written texts. Easily. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 03-May-2011 at 18:08
I ride point with ole Nick here....  he is correct to assign the position to written materials...note I said materials and not text.... for text can be somewhat misleading in definition. And as he points out in the case of them... they are indeed material, physical objects (no matter the actual material in which they were inscribed-wrtitten-carved etc... on) which might then also be put to varying tests to insure a reasonable veracity of authenticity. A concern as noted by Athena which is always cause for hesitation.But equally apt is the comment that varying sources primary and secondary, physical or other, are used by the historian.....or they should be. thanks ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 03-May-2011 at 18:22
Everything is biased. As a historian you must compare all the sources and identify the underlying truth. |