   What Is History? Fact and Fancy in the Stories We Tell Ourselves
  What is history? We think we know what history is as a simple matter of course, it's the stuff read in books in school, in the newspaper, the stuff we see on television news or History Channel documentaries. It's all that for certain, but there's more to it than that. I recently discovered the following address, found it to be a great read and an excellent answer to the question, "What is history?", so I thought I would share it: Everyman His Own Historian By Carl Becker, President of the American Historical Association, 1931Quote:...We are apt to think of the past as dead, the future as nonexistent, the present alone as real; and prematurely wise or disillusioned counselors have urged us to burn always with "a hard, gemlike flame" in order to give "the highest quality to the moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake". This no doubt is what the glowworm does; but I think that man, who alone is properly aware that the present moment passes, can for that very reason make no good use of the present moment simply for its own sake. Strictly speaking, the present doesn't exist for us, or is at best no more than an infinitesimal point in time, gone before we can note it as present. Nevertheless, we must have a present; and so we create one by robbing the past, by holding on to the most recent events and pretending that they all belong to our immediate perceptions. ...... This is the natural function of history, of history reduced to its lowest terms, of history conceived as the memory of things said and done: memory of things said and done (whether in our immediate yesterdays or in the long past of mankind), running hand in hand with the anticipation of things to be said and done, enables us, each to the extent of his knowledge and imagination, to be intelligent, to push back the narrow confines of the fleeting present moment so that what we are doing may be judged in the light of what we have done and what we hope to do. In this sense all living  history, as Croce says, is contemporaneous: in so far as we think the past (and otherwise the past, however fully related in documents, is nothing to us) it becomes an integral and living part of our present world of semblance.... Daily and hourly, from a thousand unnoted sources, there is lodged in Mr. Everyman's mind a mass of unrelated and related information and misinformation, of impressions and images, out of which he somehow manages, undeliberately for the most part, to fashion a history, a patterned picture of remembered things said and done in past times and distant places. It is not possible, it is not essential, that this picture should be complete or completely true: it is essential that it should be useful to Mr. Everyman; and that it may be useful to him he will hold in memory, of all the things he might hold in memory, those things only which can be related with some reasonable degree of relevance and harmony to his idea of himself and of what he is doing in the world and what he hopes to do.... History in this sense is story, in aim always a true story; a story that employs all the devices of literary art (statement and generalization, narration and description, comparison and comment and analogy) to present the succession of events in the life of man, and from the succession of events thus presented to derive a satisfactory meaning. ...... One of the first duties of man is not to be duped, to be aware of his world; and to derive the significance of human experience from events that never occurred is surely an enterprise of doubtful value. To establish the facts is always in order, and is indeed the first duty of the historian; but to suppose that the facts, once established in all their fullness, will 'speak for themselves' is an illusion. ... "It is not I who speak, but history which speaks through me", was Fustel's reproof to applauding students. "If a certain philosophy emerges from this scientific history, it must be permitted to emerge naturally, of its own accord, all but independently of the will of the historian."2 Thus the scientific historian deliberately renounced philosophy only to submit to it without being aware. His philosophy was just this, that by not taking thought a cubit would be added to his stature. With no other preconception than the will to know, the historian would reflect in his surface and film the "order of events throughout past times in all places"; so that, in the fullness of time, when innumerable patient expert scholars, by "exhausting the sources", should have reflected without refracting the truth of all the facts, the definitive and impregnable meaning of human experience would emerge of its own accord to enlighten and emancipate mankind. Hoping to find something without looking for it, expecting to obtain final answers to life's riddle by resolutely refusing to ask questions— it was surely the most romantic species of realism yet invented, the oddest attempt ever made to get something for nothing!... The history that lies inert in unread books does no work in the world. The history that does work in the world, the history that influences the course of history, is living history, that pattern of remembered events, whether true or false, that enlarges and enriches the collective specious present, the specious present of Mr. Everyman. It is for this reason that the history of history is a record of the "new history" that in every age rises to confound and supplant the old. It should be a relief to us to renounce omniscience, to recognize that every generation, our own included, will, must inevitably, understand the past and anticipate the future in the light of its own restricted experience, must inevitably play on the dead whatever tricks it finds necessary for its own peace of mind. The appropriate trick for any age is not a malicious invention designed to take anyone in, but an unconscious and necessary effort on the part of 'society' to understand what it is doing in the light of what it has done and what it hopes to do. ......After reading the essay, what do you think of it? The end note of that essay says that "Becker's presidential address ... is often put to widely varying uses--some to encourage a better connection to the public, others to encourage greater modesty in interpretation." Do you think the essay is better applied to encouraging a better connection to the public or a greater modesty in historical interpretation? Or do you have some other interpretation? Has Becker's address held up well in the 75 years since he gave it? What do you think of Becker's critique of the supposed objectivity of the historian? That is, the idea that facts speak for themselves?    
Quote:but to suppose that the facts, once established in all their fullness, will 'speak for themselves' is an illusionI have also come to this conclusion. The problem is that when people look to the past for answers, the answers are as varied as the viewpoints of those looking for them. For instance, why do people still fight wars? You would think that, perhaps, after the very first war people would have looked back on that event and said, "You know, that was pretty stupid. Let's not do that again!" But of course, while some may view it that way, others do not. Some might have felt "We will have our revenge!" and thus provoked War #2.If we all had the same point of view of history, it would be possible to learn from it. Unfortunately we do not and are doomed to repeat the same stupid mistakes as  generations past, as generations current, and as generations future.A sobering thought.   ;  I've learned that history is closely tied to culture as well. If you take history books from several countries and compare them, you will find that they all describe the events differently, mostly in a way favorable to that nation itself.For example, I was in highschool during the cold war, and history books portrayed the Russians as evil people that were only out to destroy us. Right out propaganda, including pictures of evil men with dark eyes that have no job, you know the drill. Also Japanese history books are known to give their own version of everything that happened around WW2. Who's right, what's true? Historical facts are non-existent IMO and only depending on the person that is writing it down.   ;  First of all, I love it when people talk down to the Everyman.  That aside,Certainly "cultural relativity" is one of his "malicious inventions."  I don't think saying "history is written by prejudiced minds, therefore we will not take history seriously" is an intelligent viewpoint, but it seems to be that of the first two replys.Yes, obviously the books lie, the historians lie, but however many holes we have in history, history is the record we have and the record we consult.  Something like "history," wherever you live, happened.  Most people realize that history needs to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.  That doesn't mean that history = fiction.  Far from it.  It means that history is a story, a narrative, and has to suspend disbelief when thinking about any of it.  It's a myth, but parts of it are true, and the most resonant parts have always been true, and always will be.  People keep making war because peace doesn't always work.  People keep seeking power because power helps you do things.  People keep tragically falling from power because they tried to take too much.  People keep loving because the world is fucked up, the history is propaganda, the pain doesn't stop, and they want to comfort those close to them and help them survive the chaos.History is just part of the story.  The facts only have meaning filtered through human nature.  Our facts, anyway. Everyman usually figures out that history isn't the be all and end all of the human condition.   ;  That's all fine and dandy, but 'everyman' doesn't figure that out on his own at all. People generally take for granted what is taught to them in school, and will stick to those values most of their lives. Don't pretend like history is a nice story in which you can find your own truth, because wars are still fought over this kind of miseducaton. Not everybody is as smart as you so he can read between the lines.;  This is a very interesting essay.  I must admit that I have never put more than a wisp of thought to what history actually is and how it is interpreted.  I simply regarded history as a series of facts -- dates, names, and events that I was told was true.  A sort of science / math in the form of "things just being there" if you will.This essay is a real eye opener, to me, due to my understanding that Mr. Becker actually analyzes history in respect to the humans that create and nurture it.This is my current take on history:Quote:...WIZARD(spoken) Elphaba, where I'm from, we believe all sorts ofthings that aren't true. We call it - "history."(sung) A man's called a traitor - or liberatorA rich man's a thief - or philanthropistIs one a crusader - or ruthless invader?It's all in which labelIs able to persistThere are precious few at easeWith moral ambiguitiesSo we act as though they don't exist...;  Intruiging...It seems to me how factual history can be is governed by the ability to record said information in an unbiased/factual manner, that can also be interpreted by people many years into the future. How do we know that we have interpreted a series of glyphs written thousands of years ago as correct?For instance, in 1,000 years time, would an accurate depiction of the world as we know it today be told? Would people have access to this forum thread? :) Would people be able to decipher historical archives stored on a potentially unreadable format? Will the Internet phenomenon and the way it has changed everyone's lives in the past 15 years or so be correctly interpreted by the historian of the year 3006?As far as I'm concerned. History only happened if I was a part of it, and have seen proof that it happened. :) Anything else that occurred could be a misinterpretation or an exaggeration. :);  I think it would be awesome if someone compiled a database of all historical documents prior to some date. This would include either a photograph or text of the original work, translations, and commentary, along with cross links and references to other documents. For more recent centuries, the number of historical documents available to us has exploded, but perhaps for Antiquity, this would be more feasible. It's probably impractical to archive everything in a centralized database but it would be nice to have as much of it as possible available in a centralized form somewhere because those ancient texts are essentially what constitute the history of the time period. The vast majority of what we know of ancient history is what has been gleaned from surviving documents. ;Quote:Original post by leiavoiaQuote:but to suppose that the facts, once established in all their fullness, will 'speak for themselves' is an illusionI have also come to this conclusion. The problem is that when people look to the past for answers, the answers are as varied as the viewpoints of those looking for them. For instance, why do people still fight wars? You would think that, perhaps, after the very first war people would have looked back on that event and said, "You know, that was pretty stupid. Let's not do that again!" But of course, while some may view it that way, others do not. Some might have felt "We will have our revenge!" and thus provoked War #2.If we all had the same point of view of history, it would be possible to learn from it. Unfortunately we do not and are doomed to repeat the same stupid mistakes as  generations past, as generations current, and as generations future.A sobering thought.It seems to me the answers are as varied as the questions asked. However, this essay is far more optimistic than your comments. What do you think of the notion that memory plus anticipation enables us to be intelligent? That this combination enables us to expand the present moment so that we may judge our current actions against our past actions and intentions? This essay comes at these questions from the perspective of individual as well as collective history. Why do we keep track of appointments? Why do we remember what was said and done yesterday? " ... in so far as we think the past ... it becomes an integral and living part of our present world of semblance." To carry forward in the terms of the essay, we think the past into the future and in so doing create for ourselves a spacious world in a specious present. It's not necessarily about being doomed to repeat the same mistakes of generations past. History isn't necessarily something that happens to us as much as it's something we make ourselves.[Edited by - LessBread on June 14, 2006 3:15:01 AM];Quote:Original post by abstractimmersionFirst of all, I love it when people talk down to the Everyman.  That aside,What leads you to think Becker was talking down to the Everyman? The Mr. Everyman he describes in the essay is a successful businessman, an industrial entrepreneur actually. He is also the historian, a person that has an everyman life as well as a scholarly one. Quote:Original post by abstractimmersionCertainly "cultural relativity" is one of his "malicious inventions."  I don't think saying "history is written by prejudiced minds, therefore we will not take history seriously" is an intelligent viewpoint, but it seems to be that of the first two replys.Whose malicious invention? Vico's? [smile]Quote:Original post by abstractimmersionYes, obviously the books lie, the historians lie, but however many holes we have in history, history is the record we have and the record we consult.  Something like "history," wherever you live, happened.  Becker deals with that distinction early in the essay. Perhaps I should have added this into the quote in the OP: Quote:... Let us then admit that there are two histories: the actual series of events that once occurred; and the ideal series that we affirm and hold in memory. The first is absolute and unchanged—it was what it was whatever we do or say about it; the second is relative, always changing in response to the increase or refinement of knowledge. The two series correspond more or less, it is our aim to make the correspondence as exact as possible; but the actual series of events exists for us only in terms of the ideal series which we affirm and hold in memory. This is why I am forced to identify history with knowledge of history. For all practical purposes history is, for us and for the time being, what we know it to be.Do historians really lie? Do they consciously falsify the stories they tell? Quote:Original post by abstractimmersionMost people realize that history needs to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.  That doesn't mean that history = fiction.  Far from it.  It means that history is a story, a narrative, and has to suspend disbelief when thinking about any of it.  It's a myth, but parts of it are true, and the most resonant parts have always been true, and always will be.  To paraphrase: ... an artificial exension of personal experience ... a mythical adaptation of that which actually happened. Facts taken as they come though we are enamored of those that seem best suited to our interests or promise most in the way of emotional satisfaction.Quote:Original post by abstractimmersionPeople keep making war because peace doesn't always work.  People keep seeking power because power helps you do things.  People keep tragically falling from power because they tried to take too much.  People keep loving because the world is fucked up, the history is propaganda, the pain doesn't stop, and they want to comfort those close to them and help them survive the chaos.Instead of claiming that peace fails, consider that people keep making war because they keep seeking power because they think power helps them do things and they want to do more than they already are.Quote:Original post by abstractimmersionHistory is just part of the story.  The facts only have meaning filtered through human nature.  Our facts, anyway. Filtered through human nature? What part of human nature? The kidneys? The liver? the gall bladder? the stomach? the genitals? the brain? the heart?Quote:Original post by abstractimmersionEveryman usually figures out that history isn't the be all and end all of the human condition.What then is the be all end all? What do you think of the notion that we think the past into the future and in so doing create for ourselves a spacious world in a specious present? What do you think Vico would have said about that conception of consciousness?[Edited by - LessBread on June 14, 2006 3:35:38 AM]