-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
So Who is History for? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Neo^^
- Start date
nwatts
Active Member
I pulled a bit of a Marxist wankfest (pardon terminology) and said history is for the FUTURE. The point of history is to evaluate patterns in the past, which we can interpret and mirror for the present. Through the "Marxist material conception of history" (Hobsbawn) we can come to realise where humanity is headed, through the evaluation of "class struggle" (Marx) throughout recorded history.
nwatts
Active Member
This was the foundation of the first question in the history exam earlier today.miss_gtr said:
Neo is essentially asking how people considered Jenkins' comments on the definition of history.
ameh
dirty trick
firstly I wrote that there has to be a distinction between past and history, and the tendency for present historian's to impose value systems on the past or possibly pattern events in the past to understand their contemporary context and for future generations. Like nwatts said, major wankfest with flaccid penis. Replace flaccid penis with lack of sufficient evidence
history is for varying groups throughout time. the historian is in a power relationship with these groups - he is a product of his time. history can never be constructed, as Von Ranke hoped, as a separate entity from society...thus the nature of history, the purpose of history and even its methods are all intrinsically connected with groups...Neo^^ said:
wank wank wank
_Benji_
Member
hehe.....that sounds *awfully* similar....marydh said:
Feel free not to read this:
I said history could be for the writer or for the reader. Where the 'power' resides rests on:
a. Whether the historian attempts to do a 'rugged reflection" (or whatever the paper said) or to spark revolution. I read Jenkins to be arguing that it is impossible for the historian to appeal to both the conservative and revolutionary reader.
b. The distance between the reader and the historian. Herodotus may be the oldest historian, very famously criticised for being the 'father of lies' and recording an oral tradition of bullshit, but he's important because he contains many 'facts' that no other written source can provide the reader.
c. Herodotus' style, as well, makes it interesting to read. On the other hand, when Thucydides tries to record the Peloponnesian War because it is in his opinion the most important event ever, but neglects aspects of his society and culture, his history can appear bland for some readers.
If we try to understand these early histories, for instance, we must come to understand the historians. Jenkins rephrases the age old question 'what is history' to 'who is history for' because he realises the former cannot be answered. Then i wrote about EH Carr's book 'what is history' and regurgitated a major chunky quote i had only read about 2 mins before the exam and had no idea on how i remembered (about the historian's use of evidence being not the most important thing.) Then I compared Bede to von Ranke based on the fact that despite professing to have his own personal views 'swallowed up' by overwhelming use of evidence, von Ranke like Bede thought it was 'God's will' that Germany be united or that history took the course it took. Linking this back to the source was a bit dubious, but I just wanted to write it...I said in a way, any attempts taken by the historian to be independent of history fail because, as Jenkins puts it, the historian can either serve his own purpose (to write either for revolutionaries or for conservatives) or he can become totally distatched from his work, and decline to write osmething of any value.
THen I restated Foucault's position: gave my view on the point of his works to put in to practice and tell hte untold stories...the nature of history is impossible to determine because there are an unlimited number of histories, but history ceases to exist from the point the event occurred until it is recorded. THen it is bound by language, but the paradox is that the evidence is also bound by language.
Then I went on a final page spiel about how in 1991 Jenkins' world was moving towards our situation in 2005 where researching history is not limited to local archives or documents, but electronic proliferation and duplication has meant the historian runs the risk of becoming overwhelmed, the reader find himself unable to find anywhere to start in his reading of history because the body of evidence is so vast, and the growth of history so the historian's role is to write a readable, work which a reader can engage with to disagree, accpet or learn from.
I said history could be for the writer or for the reader. Where the 'power' resides rests on:
a. Whether the historian attempts to do a 'rugged reflection" (or whatever the paper said) or to spark revolution. I read Jenkins to be arguing that it is impossible for the historian to appeal to both the conservative and revolutionary reader.
b. The distance between the reader and the historian. Herodotus may be the oldest historian, very famously criticised for being the 'father of lies' and recording an oral tradition of bullshit, but he's important because he contains many 'facts' that no other written source can provide the reader.
c. Herodotus' style, as well, makes it interesting to read. On the other hand, when Thucydides tries to record the Peloponnesian War because it is in his opinion the most important event ever, but neglects aspects of his society and culture, his history can appear bland for some readers.
If we try to understand these early histories, for instance, we must come to understand the historians. Jenkins rephrases the age old question 'what is history' to 'who is history for' because he realises the former cannot be answered. Then i wrote about EH Carr's book 'what is history' and regurgitated a major chunky quote i had only read about 2 mins before the exam and had no idea on how i remembered (about the historian's use of evidence being not the most important thing.) Then I compared Bede to von Ranke based on the fact that despite professing to have his own personal views 'swallowed up' by overwhelming use of evidence, von Ranke like Bede thought it was 'God's will' that Germany be united or that history took the course it took. Linking this back to the source was a bit dubious, but I just wanted to write it...I said in a way, any attempts taken by the historian to be independent of history fail because, as Jenkins puts it, the historian can either serve his own purpose (to write either for revolutionaries or for conservatives) or he can become totally distatched from his work, and decline to write osmething of any value.
THen I restated Foucault's position: gave my view on the point of his works to put in to practice and tell hte untold stories...the nature of history is impossible to determine because there are an unlimited number of histories, but history ceases to exist from the point the event occurred until it is recorded. THen it is bound by language, but the paradox is that the evidence is also bound by language.
Then I went on a final page spiel about how in 1991 Jenkins' world was moving towards our situation in 2005 where researching history is not limited to local archives or documents, but electronic proliferation and duplication has meant the historian runs the risk of becoming overwhelmed, the reader find himself unable to find anywhere to start in his reading of history because the body of evidence is so vast, and the growth of history so the historian's role is to write a readable, work which a reader can engage with to disagree, accpet or learn from.
darkroomgirl
Member
I didn't really answer the question 'Who is History for?' Instead, I discussed in my essay what appearances and facades it has taken over time, its changing purposes, audiences, etc (and here I spoke of Herodotus, Cicero, Livy, Bede, blah blah), how history has changed because of different societal needs. I didn't really have a definite answer to the question that Jenkins posed, just presented the ways in which it could be answered over time and in different contexts. Then I connected that to the possibility of objectivity in history because I think Jenkins said something like "History is what the historians make." I argued against that, saying that that kind of postmodernist relativism shouldn't be applied to history, cos history is a search for the truth of what really happened, despite the many interpretations that are in historical knowledge, and which obscure that truth.
Blah blah blah.
Blah blah blah.
rocklobster
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Messages
- 16
I essentially said that history is for the people now and in the future, but it should not be written in order to please the audience. Jenkins seemed hung up on this notion that the audience should like what is being written, if that's true than he isn't writing real history. Oh well I'm just glad I never have to think about this crud ever again.
Serius
Beyond Godlike
"the history of society is the history of class struggles" - Karl Marx
thats what i said, basically history is for the average joe, to satisfy his need to know about the past, but also as thucyides has pointed out, it it for all future generations aswell
thats what i said, basically history is for the average joe, to satisfy his need to know about the past, but also as thucyides has pointed out, it it for all future generations aswell
boycee
New Member
i really took a little while to get acquainted with section 1, and only wrote a booklet's worth. still, i eventually decided that history, as jenkins proposed, was for everyone to learn from and use in their own way (or subvert it for their purposes). basically i think he holds the utilitarian view of history, however he is very like michael foccault in thinking history is what the bigger powers say it is.
section 2 was much nicer for me, but once i got my head around the wording, it was actually a very nice source and question for section 1.
oh well, finished now.
section 2 was much nicer for me, but once i got my head around the wording, it was actually a very nice source and question for section 1.
oh well, finished now.
Personally i think that from such a great variety of source material, the exert used for section one was a farce. I normally find jenkin's enaging and often partly agree with his thoughts and ideas, but that particular piece was closed minded and left little room for great historical discussion. From reading through papers from 2001-2004, that source was easily the least credible.
"When answering the question What is history, the best thing to do is to replace the what with who, and add a for to the end"
Like seriously, sounds like an abstract riddle from a childrens story. Im probably just upset because it seems from reading the past responses that i could have attacked it in a better manner. I had walked in expecting
"What is history"
"How have hisotrians approach to writing history changed over time"
"How do historians use evidence to reconstruct the past"
"What is truth?"
etc.
Instead i get "Evaluate jenkins perspectives". To me, the question wasnt asking us to answer Who history is for.. It was merely asking us to give an educated opinion on jenkins 'perspectives', with reference to at least two sources. I subsequently went about systematically ripping shreds through everything he said, quoted a couple of black french philosophers and walked out.
Section II howerver, was well phrased and the source provided was a fantastic building block to work around. I liked it so much that i actually incorporated Beckers words into my Section I answer.
"When answering the question What is history, the best thing to do is to replace the what with who, and add a for to the end"
Like seriously, sounds like an abstract riddle from a childrens story. Im probably just upset because it seems from reading the past responses that i could have attacked it in a better manner. I had walked in expecting
"What is history"
"How have hisotrians approach to writing history changed over time"
"How do historians use evidence to reconstruct the past"
"What is truth?"
etc.
Instead i get "Evaluate jenkins perspectives". To me, the question wasnt asking us to answer Who history is for.. It was merely asking us to give an educated opinion on jenkins 'perspectives', with reference to at least two sources. I subsequently went about systematically ripping shreds through everything he said, quoted a couple of black french philosophers and walked out.
Section II howerver, was well phrased and the source provided was a fantastic building block to work around. I liked it so much that i actually incorporated Beckers words into my Section I answer.
Last edited:
i didnt even attempt to answer the question "Who is history for?" because that was not our question. i just spent about 12 pages ripping apart Jenkins suppositions that the two questions were the same and ranting about the illogicality of pomo and deconstructualist schools of thought backnig it up with some sweet windshuttle and ranke mainly with a splattering of other references. essentialy it became a "what is the purpose of history" and "is truth attainable" essay cause they were the issues Jenkins brought up, the purpose being defined by the readers use and the impossibility of truth. came off sounding a bit too conservative so tried to soften my argument with a little criticism of Windshuttle as well but overall think it went well
Kabbageau
I'm awesome
I could barely wrap my head around Question 1. Postmodernists are such annoying wannabe intellectual elitists.
My response was a bit of a mess - I talked about how historians should remain objective to ensure history is a subject with integrity - but let the masses do whatever they want with it because history is easily accessible by all. I don't think that answered the question - but hey, in this postmodern world of ours, what is a HSC response? Did it really happen? Was Jesus Black?
Bloody postmodernists.
My response was a bit of a mess - I talked about how historians should remain objective to ensure history is a subject with integrity - but let the masses do whatever they want with it because history is easily accessible by all. I don't think that answered the question - but hey, in this postmodern world of ours, what is a HSC response? Did it really happen? Was Jesus Black?
Bloody postmodernists.