How can you define History?

My first discussion in this new semester! Hist 294: Historiography

What are the various ways we can define history?

How and why can the definition of history change?

To define history would be to define humankind, an impossible task. To start in a rudimentary way, the word history itself stems from a Greek word and it means, “Learning through Inquiry”.[1] Over time the definition of history has changed and evolved, just as those who create it, study it, and live it. History has been documented since the dawn of time, in people’s on way of course, whether being passed down by word of mouth or written down in historical texts, drawn on walls, tablets and fabrics and more recently blogs, webpages, and social media. The AHA, American Historical Association, defines history as, “The never ending process whereby people seek to understand the past and its many meanings”.[2] Most importantly, the most crucial part of defining history depends on the person who is defining it. Your personal beliefs, philosophies, culture, religion, gender, age, and many other factors come into account when you are setting the boundaries for what history means to you.

There seem to be two major views when defining what history is and how people study it, to over simplify both; the chronicled and the scientific. In early humankind history was told through stories but as our species and our intellect grew, so did out need for proof and facts.

The first view uses a less ‘scientific’ approach to history. The historians that use this method aren’t specifically interested or dominated by ‘sources’. Mythopoetic narratives are poems, stories, songs, and all nature of ‘handed down’ history. They are dominated by celestial beings, historical heroes, important political figures and all manner of bold and interesting tales and people. These narratives do not include scientific proof or evidence for their history, they are peoples way of explaining their past and present. An important and popular example would be the bible. There are three primary features of mythopoetic narratives; a mythical view of space and time, a belief in the eternal recurrence of ‘cycles’ of events, and the absence of any notion of the historic capacity of man to fashion what we call ‘progress’.[3] Our History and Historians book mentions, “That although definitions and points of emphasis have changed overtime, written narratives have always centered on human affairs and purportedly set forth truths.”[4] While although in present times history is seen as more of a science, stories and tales of important people and places will continue to rise to legends because we are a species of dreamers, artists, and romantics.

            In Europe and America after the Renaissance the view of history began to evolve and with more open minds and new interests in math and science the definition of history changed. It “became the study of how humankind had changed and progressed in linear fashion throughout the ages”.[5] Historians began using the historical method in their research and study. The historical method is similar to the scientific method whereas you create a hypothesis, use sources, analyze and study those sources, and use that information to answer your hypothesis. History became a science, and to this day without sources, facts, and proof your hypotheses will be mute and disregarded very quickly. It will be nothing more than fiction.

            History has evolved many times throughout the course of human existence, and I am absolutely sure that it will endure more change in the future. As humankind grows and evolves so will the means by which we study it. If you were to go back in time and show early historians that we can from comfort of our own homes on magical picture boxes from states and continents away from one another, debate the definition of history, they would agree on how far we have come also.

Bibliography:

Gilderhus, Mark T. History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

Hoefferle, Caroline. The Essential Historiography Reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

---

[1] Caroline Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 3.

[2] Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader, 3-4.

[3] Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader, 5.

[4] Mark T. Gilderhus, History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010), 4.

[5] Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader, 6.

Looking forward!

I have just registered for some new classes. I have six classes to go to graduate. Next up is Geography (An elective) and History 294 (Histiography). I am looking forward to getting back into the swing of things this October. Wish me luck!

Looking back: My first history essay ever. Almost five years ago now, it was written in 2009.

             There were many things that led to the civil war.  So for the civil war not to happen at all or been avoided, these things would not have to happen either. So in my opinion it is not possible the civil war could have been avoided. Some of these reasons the civil war happened are economic differences, states vs. federal rights, the election of Abraham Lincoln, and slavery.

                 The first cause I want to talk about for the disturbances between the north and the south was their economic differences. It was a huge problem for many different reasons; the north was basing their life on industry and the growth of technology while the south was still basing their living on agriculture content with the way things were. The north was advancing at a rapid pace and in a way leaving the south behind to pick cotton. And that is exactly what they did; the cotton gin was invented and it made it easier to pick cotton in turn giving the south another reason to keep slaves and so the south became a one crop economy.

        Another issue was states vs. federal rights. When America began they had the articles of the confederation which resulted in a lot of states that were neighbors but nothing more because the federal government was so weak it had no power over its people. They were disconnected from one another and that’s how some of them liked it, but when it came to trying to unite the two sides it was near impossible to do so. Then the constitution gave the federal government more control and some states just sat the idea out because they didn’t want to be controlled by the government which in turn resulted in the idea of nullification. States could just decide which ideas to like and which ideas not to like from the government and that resulted in a torn nation.

          There was the election of Abraham Lincoln also. This was a sort of breaking point for the nation, and even though they were already butting heads some southern states believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of the north before he even became president; seven states had already succeeded when he went into office.

            Slavery is usually the only thing people can come up with when they are asked what started the civil war.  Slavery was a huge part of the disagreements between the north and the south but it wasn’t the only reason. Also during this time there was a growth of the abolitionist movement and that helped push the two sides over the edge about slavery. One of the largest reasons slavery become an issue was because America began to expand the north and the south due to the Louisiana purchase as well as general movement westward; they began to disagree on which states became slave states and which states became free states. A few acts were devised to help the process along and they were the Missouri compromise, and the compromise of 1850. Acts were thought up and shot down and passed through which only made the tensions worse.

            The previous paragraphs are reasons why the civil war happened, so now I can talk about how it may have been possible in some way that it may have been avoided and how different today would be. First off the main thing we lost in the civil war was life and property; the list of casualties was about 620,000. With Sherman’s march to the sea in mind, entire plantations, even cities were burned to the ground. So for starters, that wouldn’t have happened and brothers and fathers, even mothers would still be alive. Honestly what the south should have done was in the early 1850’s was just realize that slavery was a dying work form, and just release them. They could have gotten by with a third less slaves anyways, and they could have found another way, like I don’t know..paid labor. In regards to the political struggle between the two sides it would have been almost impossible to prevent a fight.

            There were many reasons for the disagreements from the north and the south and eventually those disagreements went so far that the civil war came to pass. In my opinion it could have never been prevented and honestly it needed to happen to reunite the United States.

How has your writing changed?