Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look---it's like meteorology. They measure the rainfall every day. If there is a drought or a flood, that is not a matter for meteorologists to evaluate or pass judgment on.
Well that's not true, meteorologist regularly place such events into a historical context. The worst drought, the most devastating flood are all descriptions are regularly used by meteorologist who maintain such data, establishing historical records.
Quote:
It's a science.
But history isn't science, it is heavily dependent upon subjective evaluations.
But history isn't science, it is heavily dependent upon subjective evaluations.
So then, you ARE saying that historical facts cannot be known, or are useless knowledge, unless someone makes an agenda-driven pontification on the ethical merit of the events. Do I understand you correctly?
I think I take offense on the use of "morality", progressive, and reactionary which have totally divergent historical meanings to me. And, while I too believe that personal morality has no place in history other than explaining the morality that existed in at the time and placed within its historical context. As for progressive and reactionary, well a very good argument could be made based on the basis that you have laid out that Nazi Germany was progressive as others here have attempted to do in the past. The fact that the NSDP was able to drag Germany out of depression and build one of the greatest war machines that world has ever know could just as well be described as progressive as Stalin. The only difference is that Hitler's progress lasted only a few decades less that Stalin's.
Well, Carr would argue that you need to take the individual events and decisions and weigh them independently. Breaking down the effect of the Nazi party on Germany, one can certainly find "progressive" elements and decisions, especially in the early years as Germany rose out of the depression and rebuilt its military. All of that was positive for Germany. Taken as a whole the Nazi state would be seen as "reactionary" or negative as they certainly led Germany down a path of destruction and as I stated earlier, the "progressive" elements were only tools to enable them to practice their "reactionary" racial programs.
I have no problem discussing the "progressive" elements of the Nazi state as long as we don't choose to make that discussion selective and ignore the "reactionary" elements that drove it. That is ultimately my issue with posters like sarahnyc. They either choose to ignore the "reactionary" elements all together to glorify the Nazi state or worse yet, don't view those actions as "reactionary". I get the feeling that the latter is sarahnyc's view.
So then, you ARE saying that historical facts cannot be known, or are useless knowledge, unless someone makes an agenda-driven pontification on the ethical merit of the events. Do I understand you correctly?
I think what ovcatto and I are trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with historical fact, but those facts are useless without inerpretation or context. The facts serve as the foundation that is built upon by the historian. Don't think of a historian as a scientist, think of them as analysts.
In that context an analyst who simply reports the facts without providing any "analysis" aka interpretation is useless. Anyone can list the facts. A good analyst uses the facts/data to draw conclusions and provide context about what those facts mean.
I checked on Serbia ( just to take as an example) and this is what I see -
According to the last census in 2002, the most numerous religious groups in Serbia (excluding territory of Kosovo) were:
:
So putting Eastern Europeans in the same sentence with Arabs and Persians in that sense sounds strange at least.
Then you need to know about Bosnian-Serb conflict. Bosnia is where the majority follows Islam, not Serbia (a country you picked to try and make a point). BTW, Turkey is also Eastern Europe.
I think what ovcatto and I are trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with historical fact, but those facts are useless without inerpretation or context. The facts serve as the foundation that is built upon by the historian. Don't think of a historian as a scientist, think of them as analysts.
In that context an analyst who simply reports the facts without providing any "analysis" aka interpretation is useless. Anyone can list the facts. A good analyst uses the facts/data to draw conclusions and provide context about what those facts mean.
In other words, you want the body of historians to consist entirely of people that you can subjectively agree or disagree with, according to whether the historians produce analyses that reinforce your own agenda. And then you throw out the ones you disagree with, and say their "history" is fallacious or invalid.
You have to draw a boundary line between the body of historical fact, and the interpretations that those facts can lead to, if taken selectively for the purpose of reinforcing an agenda. (Even though, admittedly, the line, like all lines, may be fuzzy.)
The business of the historian: "The town was attacked by 1,000 soldiers . . ."
NOT the business of the historian: " . . . because they were evil."
The business of the historian: "The town was attacked by 1,000 soldiers . . ."
NOT the business of the historian: " . . . because they were evil."
I'm not sure where this discussion is coming from, or where it is going, but just chiming in with an opinion. When a historian documents something, it is based on an analysis of the subject. It is how they can document that 1000 soldiers did indeed attack the town. This would then serve as a foundation for a discussion, to draw a conclusion.
The business of the historian: "The town was attacked by 1,000 soldiers . . ."
NOT the business of the historian: " . . . because they were evil."
The above is not what is taught in history grad schools. The historians responsibility is to establish the facts to the best of his or her ability, but the historian is not limited to that task and no others.
Establishing the facts often requires x amount of interpretive work, evidence is often in conflict with other reports.
And interpretation is not limited to making good/evil judgments, it includes wise/foolish, progressive/regressive, helped/harmed.
For example, the historian can lay out all of the facts concerning Lee's invasion of Maryland in 1862, and the historian is also free to render judgments on the move. Could it have helped to end the war in favor of the South or was it a waste of lives and energy that had no chance of a favorable outcome for the Confederacy? Was Lee wise to give battle when he did not really need to do so? Was Lee indulging in ego alone when he had his army remain in position on the 18th? Could the Northern forces have destroyed Lee's army with more aggressive leadership? Was the lack of pursuit back into Virginia justified or a serious error?
Historians have been doing these sorts of things for a very long time, now you are informing us that they have been overstepping their proper functioning all this time?
In other words, you want the body of historians to consist entirely of people that you can subjectively agree or disagree with, according to whether the historians produce analyses that reinforce your own agenda. And then you throw out the ones you disagree with, and say their "history" is fallacious or invalid.
You have to draw a boundary line between the body of historical fact, and the interpretations that those facts can lead to, if taken selectively for the purpose of reinforcing an agenda. (Even though, admittedly, the line, like all lines, may be fuzzy.)
The business of the historian: "The town was attacked by 1,000 soldiers . . ."
NOT the business of the historian: " . . . because they were evil."
You need to be ever mindful of the motivations and agenda when reading peoples interpretations of history. Even primary sources often are slanted in their view based upon who they were written by. That is why everything comes down to interpretation. A poor historian would be the one who dismisses without counter-fact the interpretations of another.
I'm not even really sure what we are arguing about at this point, but I challenge you to find me ANY historian who simply presents a list of facts and provides no interpretation of them.
I'm not sure where this discussion is coming from, or where it is going, but just chiming in with an opinion. When a historian documents something, it is based on an analysis of the subject. It is how they can document that 1000 soldiers did indeed attack the town. This would then serve as a foundation for a discussion, to draw a conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
The above is not what is taught in history grad schools. The historians responsibility is to establish the facts to the best of his or her ability, but the historian is not limited to that task and no others.
Establishing the facts often requires x amount of interpretive work, evidence is often in conflict with other reports.
And interpretation is not limited to making good/evil judgments, it includes wise/foolish, progressive/regressive, helped/harmed.
For example, the historian can lay out all of the facts concerning Lee's invasion of Maryland in 1862, and the historian is also free to render judgments on the move. Could it have helped to end the war in favor of the South or was it a waste of lives and energy that had no chance of a favorable outcome for the Confederacy? Was Lee wise to give battle when he did not really need to do so? Was Lee indulging in ego alone when he had his army remain in position on the 18th? Could the Northern forces have destroyed Lee's army with more aggressive leadership? Was the lack of pursuit back into Virginia justified or a serious error?
Historians have been doing these sorts of things for a very long time, now you are informing us that they have been overstepping their proper functioning all this time?
Thank you both for responding to this better than I could.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.