Recent conversations here about the "doing of history" prompt me to share the following amusing but instructive clip.
This fanciful report demonstrates the difficulty of interpreting primary sources related to any historic event, movement or group of individuals. History is always about interpretation and availability of primary sources. No one "does history" apart from their own personal context, perspective, biases, and understandings.
While the YouTube spot is intended to be humorous, it also serves well to press upon us all a bit of humility when it comes to our certainty about historical events and their interpretation.
12 comments:
This is hilarious, and it also proves your point well, and raises some troubling questions when it comes to theology. I have just started on Zinn's book and I must confess that I was a bit surprised at his lack of footnotes. An easy to read engaging author can still produce a work full of source note . I think David McCullough body of work, especially "John Adams" is a great case in point. If I were teaching an American History class I might consider using Zinn, but not as my main textbook. Thanks for the laugh. I have a fanatical Beatles fan that I am going to email this to. Enjoy the snow.
R. Corum
"personal context, perspective, biases, and understandings." -
OK...but did OJ commit murder?
No - not proven because of my personal context, perspective, biases, and understandings.
Yes...because of the evidence.
Either he did or he didn't
Dress it up anyway you want, color it anyway you choose, Zinn wants to bring down our system of government.
A system that allows such disparity between rich and poor, where influence and power are bought, one which has killed thousands in the "name of freedom", etc, etc. probably deserves scrutiny and change.
We have a large middle class, we do not "allow" disparity, those who drop out of school, are involved in crime, etc. are allowing themselves to be poor.
So should I assume that people who post anonymously do not believe their opinions credible enough to sign off their name?
c hand, thanks for the post, but you present a totally different sort of case than is faced by historians. How did the US gov't behave during the Spanish American War in the Phillipines is just a tad more complicated than whether OJ was innocent or not. BTW--he was declared innocent by the jury, so there you go. Maybe your simple example is not so simple afterall and possibly it makes the very point I'm trying to make about "doing history."
Larry - OJ was found "not guilty" not "innocent". Sometimes people are interested more in truth and justice while others are concerned with "their own personal context, perspective, biases, and understandings." The murderers of Emmett Till were also turned loose, do you consider that history simple or complicated?
Spanish American War - Spain was the bad guys for the most part. The US was not as good as we both would have liked. Asi es la vida
Daniel - It does not matter whether one posts using "anonymous" because for all we know people can make up a name. Like, you may not really be Daniel but instead really be Don. I get tired of the criticism by folks like you whose only come back is the one you gave here today or worse demean the person expressing an opinion because that person did not want to use their name. Grow up. If you don't ahve anything better to add then just read and don't comment since your comment does nothing to advance the discussion. My guess is that you would not have made such a comment if the poster had said something you agreed with or expressed a liberal minded opinion. if Larry has a problem with people posting "anonymous", then he should ban it. Otherwise, you should leave your comments in the bag.
It's one thing to make a valid criticism anonymously. It's a completely different thing to hide behind anonymity while lobbing hand grenades -- it's pure cowardice.
ok - so we will all make up a name to make everyone who disagrees with us "feel better". What is the point? Do you see how silly your argument is?
The only silly thing I see his people making outrageous comments that can't or refuse to back them up. I find people with doomsday mentalities to alway be silly.
Post a Comment