A common misconception regarding history is that it is possible to create a definitive version of the past, to show the past "as it really was." In practice such a Rankean ideal is unattainable. All histories are narratives that seek to persuade the reader. That being said we should expect from historians something more than mere fancy. To be credible an historian must be fair and accurate with regard to the known facts; and he or she must be as exhaustive as possible. It is not fair to ignore or minimize important evidence that would undermine your narrative or to distort the importance of supportive evidence. This exhaustive rigor and fairness used to be what distinguished professional historians from popular polemicists. In recent decades that distinction has largely broken down. At times it seems that all we have left is contending narratives, advanced with passion by various interests. Such is the case with regard to the Gay Lincoln debate that is currently raging within the history community. If you are interested in the current state of the argument check out the posts at the History News Network. Note how much of the commentary is by journalists rather than professional historians. Note also that charges of "homophobia" have already been raised. Sigh!
UPDATE:
K.M. Lawson, over at Muninn [an obscure reference to Norse mythology -- it is the name of one of Wotan's ravens, it means "memory"] has an excellent meditation on the problem of objectivity in history, titled "populating the past." Take a few minutes to read it.
No comments:
Post a Comment