What makes good history?

[Greek Stud]

My impression of "Bad History" is history that is left untouched. This can fit a number of cases. Many of you posters write about biased research, and so if the history is not discussed and thus left as fact is in most cases "Bad History."

I also view "Bad History" as being history that you are either researching or observing while neglecting the cultural and perceptive influence upon the laws, important persons, events or stories being told. When you flat out set unorganized points in a pattern without recognizing other variables that effect the historical event, then it is "Bad History."

 

[Hornblower]

I also view "Bad History" as being history that you are either researching or observing while neglecting the cultural and perceptive influence upon the laws, important persons, events or stories being told. When you flat out set unorganized points in a pattern without recognizing other variables that effect the historical event, then it is "Bad History."

Yes we also have to be careful when writing/researching history that we don't try to apply our own "cultural norms" to our subject if it is markedly different in any way from our own. That has the potential to lead to creation of bad or flawed history. I think that if you attempt to apply your own morality or social framework you are destined to not actually give an accurate report.

 

[Dell19]

Its useful to evaluate the credentials of the author to see whether it looks like they are qualified to write reasonably unbiased accounts. For instance an author who has written several books on the subject and is a lecturer in the subject will probably be able to give a good account whereas a journalistic background may hint towards the author being more motivated in generating an account that is biased towards a particular view that may be linking to sales.

The point about not taken primary sources as gospel is also a good one since for example Thomas J Watson jr seems to have modified his view of the history of IBM to show that he urged IBM to enter the new computing market after they were languishing behind Remington Rand, when in fact there were several computers in development and one was even on display in the company headquarters. It is partially true in the sense that IBM would then focus on developing machines for the government but this may have been a mistake as they could have entered the business market earlier.

Also the point about history being the process of making facts is a good one since it allows history to tell a story that can keep the reader interested and to allow them to learn about the topic.

 

[Vrylakas]

It goes deeper as well. It is certainly one thing to need to check for a writer's intentional bias - and that is a necessary step, as Dell points out - but one must also look for their unintentional biases.

Someone like Irving has an obvious political agenda in his writings and he is obviously trying to make the history fit around his ideology, but every human being is chock-full of different identities and cultural beliefs that color how they see the world. It is impossible for humans to be completely objective. This is a conundrum of course, because a historian must try to be as objective as possible in their work - their mission is to understand the events and peoples they study, and convey that understanding to others - but we as readers of history have to be aware of the authors' own background.

For instance: Edward Gibbon wrote what is still considered by many to be the definitive history of the late western Roman Empire in the late 18th century, in his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Despite many new discoveries and works since, it is still an excellent source. However, it is riddled with many cultural notions that we must be aware of. First of all, the title: "Roman Empire"? By this, Gibbon was referring to the western half of the 5th century Roman Empire, and decidedly not the eastern half that would survive another 1000 years until 1453. This eastern half is referred to (quite derisively) by Western Europeans as "Byzantium", and is considered an entirely different and almost unrelated empire - though the Byzantines called themselves Romans and at least began their historical journey with Roman laws and customs. The point isn't to argue whether Byzantium was truly Roman or not, it is to point out that it is a popular cultural conception in western Europe (i.e., Gibbon's home area) that Byzantium wasn't Roman - and his book reflects this view. Also, Gibbon's book (actually, multi-volume study that most know only through severely abridged versions) ultimately looks at the collapse of (western) Rome as a crime scene, with Gibbons as the cop. He describes the collapse as a disaster, and when he looks for the reasons behind the collapse he is also assigning blame. Gibbons was a well-to-do, successful Englishman who circulated socially in the highest social circles of his country, during the height of British imperial power. Gibbon was proud to be British and the success of the British empire in his day seemed to validate the ultimate soundness and "goodness" of British society. Gibbon, in writing about Rome's collapse, was himself a subject of a mighty and prosperous empire; he saw empires as a good and beneficial thing, so his book about Rome's collapse is really a kind of lament. He quite angrily points an accusing finger at 5th century Christian radicals because they undermined many traditional (and successful) Roman institutions. For Gibbon, the subject of his book, Rome, was a good thing whose collapse was a disaster for humanity.

At about the same time Gibbon was finishing his volumes, American republicans (lower case "r") across the Atlantic in Philadelphia were pouring over Roman history too as they tried to create the first truly democratic constitution. They did not see the Roman empire as a positive thing; they were looking to understand why the Roman Republic fell - guys like Jefferson and Adams were studying Juliu Caesar and his crossing of the Rubicon closely, to see how they could structure the new American government to withstand the kinds of pressures that destroyed the Roman republic. They equated the Roman empire - a model they desperately wanted to avoid - with King George III's Britain, an empire they did not sympathize with, for some obvious reasons.

The times and places we are born in impact how we see the world, and it is natural that such background cultural values will seep into any History we write. We now live in an age where democracy is ascendant, where we see History in terms of progress, and individualism is virtually a cult. There's nothing wrong with these or other (like Gibbon's) values; but as readers, this is why we must be aware of who wrote whatever history we are reading. Take the "individual freedom", moralism, democracy and anti-nationalism angles out of most histories written today about World War II, and can you recognize what's left? Can you imagine a future, say 100 years from now, where most people lament the defeat of Hitler's Germany?

 

[Plotinus]

That is a very good point, very well put.

I think the clear conclusion from all this is that history is a damnably slippery thing.

 

[mrtn]

What about readability?
Is a accessible book, written in a good and "exciting" (as in fun/interesting to read) way better than a history book written with aweful language in a boring way, but being more correct?
Is it better with a factually extremely correct book, read by three old professors, than with a popular historical book (which may include a few errors), written by a journalist (or some other person, who's more of a writer than a historian)?

Quantity or quality?

This also ties in with the question if we can ever learn from history... Can those three old professors make us change course to avoid a historical pitfall?

 

[Dell19]

I think it would be a balance between the two.

History becomes useless if it is inexcessable and its useless if it is fiction although its probably safer to lean towards extreme accuracy as at least people are not largely misinformed. I guess thats another question though, at what point does simplification become misleading and negatively impact on the value of the historical account.

 

[Plotinus]

But who said history had to be useful in the first place?

 

[jonatas]

But who said history had to be useful in the first place?

Plotinus hit the nail on the head. From my perspective, history can be useful, however we cannot reduce it to its uses, because that would be to fundamentally misunderstand it. Anyone who tries to reduce it to a "purpose" is already in error because they are trying to pre-define and limit something for everyone else.

I'll inject some more of my personal ideas. History at its highest level becomes an art form and allows the historian, by creating the work, and the reader, by reading it, to enter a kind of "contemplation" where the most varied ideas and concepts can be considered and understood on some level. Good history leads to a greater awareness of its subject, and not just in terms of "knowledge", though that indeed is absolutely fundamental to serious history, but in a kind of creative and intelligent interpretation. It leads to greater understanding of possibilities.

At the same time, history is intimately tied up with language and shares its weaknesses and strengths. It takes the form of narrative and is told by someone. History is an approximation and interpretation by nature, and this nature must be recognized by the Historian in order to avoid, as much as possible, falling prey to pre-conceived notions about what it should be about. Intelligent and creative interpretation is what interests me most, however it must include analytical and intellectual rigor and honesty of course. The best history, IMO, above any particular useful purposes it can serve, produces a kind of "aesthetic pleasure" and contemplation in the intellect. And I'm not referring to only texts, but also ideas. That is basically my very personal take

edit: As far as accessibility goes, sometimes it's a virtue, and other times it's not important depending on content and context IMO. It depends.

 

[Mungaf]

I agree with the idea of "bad history" as being either history that is inaccurate, or biased, or poorly written. Good history is simply well written and accurate history. Great history is when a light is shown on history from an entirely new or brilliant angle which changes the way the reader looks at the world and its past.

 

[Plotinus]

[Mungaf] The problem is that accuracy isn't enough to make good history. For example, you could accurately describe in minute detail everything a certain person did on a certain day, but it wouldn't be good history. You have to select which events to describe. That's where it becomes difficult, because you have to establish what is relevant/interesting. There are no clear rules here. For example, what Hitler had for breakfast on 10 April 1910 probably isn't very interesting even in a biography of Hitler. But what he had for breakfast on 30 April 1945 might, conceivably, be interesting, because even someone's mundane actions in the hours before their death are just more intrinsically interesting (because we like to try to imagine what was going through their mind). This is why I think jonatas' post is exactly right: history is a narrative, but more than that, it is a narration. Who is narrating and who is listening? I think good history will always keep that in mind, even where it doesn't become explicit.

 

[mrtn]

But who said history had to be useful in the first place?

It can be useful. It doesn't have to be.

 

[mitsho]

However, I think, one point that hasn't been treated in this thread is what exactly history is? As Cicero pointed it out, the subject of debate has to be clearly defined before the discussion actually starts.* Are chronicles history? commentars (like Caesars or Procops work) history? Where lies the difference inbetween literature and historical books? Is their actually a difference? Does their need to be a differnce?

See, I just ask questions, but probably do say a lot just with them.

mitsho


*He let Scipio Africanus say that in "de re publica", I know that since I need to know it for my final oral exams (Latin) this wednesday. So wish me luck, also for the other exams, which start tomorrow.

 

[jonatas]

It can be useful. It doesn't have to be.

Yes, history can have a whole range of utilities, but I would say we cannot reduce or equate a particular utility to being its "meaning". IMO
There may not even be a great overarching "meaning", but rather meanings which emerge from different perspectives.

I am no longer necessarily talking about texts or even historians, but ideas and their interpretation, and how we view the past.

 

[jonatas]

However, I think, one point that hasn't been treated in this thread is what exactly history is? As Cicero pointed it out, the subject of debate has to be clearly defined before the discussion actually starts.* Are chronicles history? commentars (like Caesars or Procops work) history? Where lies the difference inbetween literature and historical books? Is their actually a difference? Does their need to be a differnce?

See, I just ask questions, but probably do say a lot just with them.

mitsho


*He let Scipio Africanus say that in "de re publica", I know that since I need to know it for my final oral exams (Latin) this wednesday. So wish me luck, also for the other exams, which start tomorrow.

Mitsho, history can be anything. Let's forget texts and historians. Let's talk about ideas and interpretation. It can be thought itself. But then the question arises, why are you interested in it?

 

[mitsho]

So, you're saying, history is nothing but facts? Everything else is interpretation?

Fine, but that's just boring.

 

[jonatas]

So, you're saying, history is nothing but facts? Everything else is interpretation?

Fine, but that's just boring.

lol

and good luck with your latin exam

 

[Verbose]

That is a very good point, very well put.

I think the clear conclusion from all this is that history is a damnably slippery thing.

I agree.

And what Vrylakas brought up is the reason for the situation that every generation tends to rewrite history from its own perspective.

History isn't something immutable, set down in stone once it's been committed to paper, people (not just historians) are always playing around with it, reinterpreting it.

History writing is also inherently political. It's not by chance that rulers of nations have for centuries been avid readers of works of history.
History has been veeery useful for a lot of people over time. Who's using it in your neighbourhood right now? For what purpose?

Reading history is in itself an activity that changes it. We don't just write or read the stuff, we use it, and using it changes it. Gibbon, in Vrylakas' example, certainly couldn't imagine the audience he would have today, or the uses his book would be put to in the period inbetween him and us.

There are other historians who's work is more politically charged than Gibbon's of course.
Someone like the late 18th c. German historian Herder has achieved the remarkable status of being at the same time a major inspirer for Nazism (exceptionality of a German Kultur under threat) and at the same time of anthropological cultural relativism (respect for the exceptionality of all cultures and the need to understand them from an inside perspective).
Of course, it's not really Herder doing all this, it's the different uses he's been put to by others.

In any case, it usually pays to take notice (or try to work out should it not be overly obvious, and mostly it isn't) of a writers unstated agenda.

What's the writers view of agency in history?
Who is/are the subject/s, the actor/s, in history? (In Christian historical narrative it used to be God. From the 18th c. it increasingly tends to be the state.)
What's the object of study? Stated and/or implicit? (God, states, great men, genius of the human spirit, rulers, the people, culture, society, civilisation, science, chance, some other concept?)
What's the writers view of causality? (What is it that needs explaining, and what is it that provides an explanation? What's the role of luck/chance/providence etc?)
What's considered a sufficient explanation/cause in a narrative? (We generally tend to have an easier time accepting reasons of economy or power than say religion in our historical narratives these days.)
Who's the intended audience? What purpose is this written for?

I usually start there abouts.
Culture, society etc. usually comes in under what explains/what needs explaining in a narrative. (Always watch out for circular arguments.)

Oh, unfortunately, the way I tend to go about things, all history is technically "bad" (biased, flawed) if the objective is seen as writing it "as it actually was".
The good parts are still interesting though, for a variety of reasons, and could perhaps be said to be "bad, but a very high level" (that's a quote).

 

[klazlo]

Just my two cents. I'm a sociologist and not a historian.
Good history for me means the intersection of a number of things:

1. good sources
2. good understanding of the sources
3. a sociological eye

That is, you have to have really good sources about what happened, plus you have to have a quite good understanding of these sources, i.e. why and how did they write what they did. And also, you need to have a sociological eye, that is understanding the broad societal, economic and cultural patterns and currents of the time.
While historical events are often seem to be individual, they should be placed into the appropriate context, which reveals the bias in the sources as well.
Somebody like Durkheim might believe that there is an objective truth out there, and one can say that an objective history exists, but once someone tries to tell or interpret history, it is fully exposed to one's cultural and social background (and some poeple can deal with this, while others cannot).
So if there isn't an objective history of the world, it all depends on how well we understand our sources.

 

[Point]

My view on bad history is Propaganda type history. Example; I watched a doco last night on the history of aerial combat, enter the battle of britain and the quote "A desperate Goering switched his focus away from military installations and onto civilian targets, bringing a dark new face to air warfare". This is blatantly incorrect, Hitler demanded London be bombed in retaliation to a night raid by the British carried out on Berlin which hit civilian targets.

A Good History doco would have highlighted the flaws on both sides, rather than the ususal "Germans were the baddies and we owned them" flogged horse.