Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel W
There is a big debate going on among historians - the teachers of history and the writers of history - about this new way of presenting history. Social history it is called. I don't know what they call the old way that I learned. Maybe someone else does. Both do have their value but social history seems to turn into personal history that really has nothing to do with "history".
I used to protest history magazines that never published any articles except those about wars. There is more to history than wars - which is what the social historians are trying to show. We read about Thomas Jefferson and his contributions to the new government. Is that it? Is that all? Social historians want to tell how he lived, how his family lived, how his slaves lived. A lot of people who think they know all about Jefferson because they can tell you his contribution to the constitution and the Louisiana Purchase. But they have no idea that he had slaves while he frowned on the idea of slavery - actually wrote against the institution. They know nothing of his contribution to architecture and other things that affect our everyday lives.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. For my part, I rather suspect the reason people learn more history after they leave school is that they get the personal, social side of it. That means more to them because it relates to everyday living.
Maybe just separate the two?
|
Social history is obviously superior; the artificial detachment characteristic of traditional academic presentations of history does nothing for the advancement of true historical awareness IMO. People rarely connect the dots between the facts (facts including "what X, Y, and W caused Z") they're encouraged to memorize.
I endorse everything cpg said in this thread...not to say Grandstander doesn't make valid points as well, but from a big-picture perspective, I'm on the side of the de facto social historian cpg. Also jtur88 makes a good point that a forum is inevitably going to reflect the interests and strengths of its participants.