The Problem with History
As many of you may know, I am a history major. I have dedicated most of my adult life to the pursuit and study of the past. As some of you know, I have recently changed my academic pursuit to an MBA. Starting in the fall I will begin my life as a businessman. My reasoning is thus: I cannot rationalize spending my life justifying a discipline that I'm not entirely sure can be justified.
Now I know some of you may be thinking "It's history. It's important." For those of you thinking that know that History, as an academic pursuit and viable career, is relatively recent. While there are histories, texts and such that were created and cared for throughout time those who did so did not identify themselves as historians. That started much more recently. Historians have been around for only a few hundred years. Since their creation Historians have been constantly defending and justifying their existence and necessity. Now, after a couple hundred years of effort, most people believe the necessity of studying history.
But even a bigger problem than justifying history is history itself. I am at the very end of a class that teaches the philosophy and writing of history. Not only are we learning the different schools of thought in history but also what history is at its most basic level. To spare the masses I will not get into the really deep stuff. Instead I will share an analogy of history that I created and shared with my class. Please keep in mind that this analogy had the full approval of my professor as an analogy that accurately describes what history really is. Here is goes:
History is like the stereotypical white guy on the dance floor. It's not always pretty nor can not always be properly understood. It is often made up as the dance progresses and is based on some rules that the white guy thought he heard about one time a while ago. But most people recognize it when they see it and know what is trying to be done.
At this point my professor said that my analogy did not work despite how accurate it may be. She said that women didn't fit in my analogy so it would not work. I countered with:
Sure, women are always there. They're there but not in control, they're the ones forced to go along with the white guy as he leads them through the hell that is their impromptu dance.
At this point I looked at my classmate, Carlos, a fine young, black historian, and said "Sorry, Carlos, my analogy doesn't work for Blacks. They're just too good at dancing."
In short, this is history: History is a close facsimile of past events that are partially based on verifiable fact but filtered through a historians personal biases.
Or;
It's crap that you made up that fits into other people's idea of what the past should look like.
Now I know some of you may be thinking "It's history. It's important." For those of you thinking that know that History, as an academic pursuit and viable career, is relatively recent. While there are histories, texts and such that were created and cared for throughout time those who did so did not identify themselves as historians. That started much more recently. Historians have been around for only a few hundred years. Since their creation Historians have been constantly defending and justifying their existence and necessity. Now, after a couple hundred years of effort, most people believe the necessity of studying history.
But even a bigger problem than justifying history is history itself. I am at the very end of a class that teaches the philosophy and writing of history. Not only are we learning the different schools of thought in history but also what history is at its most basic level. To spare the masses I will not get into the really deep stuff. Instead I will share an analogy of history that I created and shared with my class. Please keep in mind that this analogy had the full approval of my professor as an analogy that accurately describes what history really is. Here is goes:
History is like the stereotypical white guy on the dance floor. It's not always pretty nor can not always be properly understood. It is often made up as the dance progresses and is based on some rules that the white guy thought he heard about one time a while ago. But most people recognize it when they see it and know what is trying to be done.
At this point my professor said that my analogy did not work despite how accurate it may be. She said that women didn't fit in my analogy so it would not work. I countered with:
Sure, women are always there. They're there but not in control, they're the ones forced to go along with the white guy as he leads them through the hell that is their impromptu dance.
At this point I looked at my classmate, Carlos, a fine young, black historian, and said "Sorry, Carlos, my analogy doesn't work for Blacks. They're just too good at dancing."
In short, this is history: History is a close facsimile of past events that are partially based on verifiable fact but filtered through a historians personal biases.
Or;
It's crap that you made up that fits into other people's idea of what the past should look like.
Comments
Post a Comment