History is Interpretation - "Objectivity" in History
Summary
TLDRThis video explores the interpretive nature of history and the quest for an ideal, yet unattainable, historical truth. It emphasizes the role of historians in shaping our understanding through consensus and the reinterpretation of sources. The script discusses the evolution of historical perspectives, such as the economic view of Nazi Germany, and highlights the importance of narrative in conveying history's moral compass. It concludes by emphasizing historians' dedication to truth and the impact of their work on society.
Takeaways
- 📚 The script discusses the interpretive nature of history and the pursuit of an ideal historical truth that is always evolving.
- 🔍 It emphasizes that historians' reconstructions of the past are never perfect due to practical difficulties and the discovery of new sources that can change interpretations.
- 👥 The consensus among historians can shift as more sources are found and as different perspectives are considered, leading to a reevaluation of past conclusions.
- 📖 The importance of historians' proper source use is highlighted, including assessing the quality of sources and avoiding over-reliance on specific ones.
- 🆕 The appearance of new sources is not the only way history can change; sometimes, new topics or angles that have been neglected are brought to light, leading to a shift in consensus.
- 💼 Adam Tooze, an economic historian, is mentioned as an example of a scholar who seeks to add perspectives to the understanding of Nazi Germany, particularly the role of the economy.
- 🏆 John Lewis Gaddis, a Cold War historian, stresses that no two historians will interpret history in the same way, and there can never be a single standard for objectivity.
- 📈 The script mentions that historians reflect the present in their judgments of the past, and history is constantly being re-evaluated with new metrics, such as the role of women, minorities, and culture.
- 📝 Roderick Stackelberg and Edward Hallett Carr are cited to argue that history is a continuous interaction between the historian and the facts, with a balance between fact and interpretation.
- 🌐 Peter Novick discusses the concept of historical objectivity as a contested idea, with no single definition agreed upon by all.
- 📚 William Cronin asserts the importance of narrative in history, stating that stories told by historians can influence actions and have the power to effect real change.
Q & A
What is the main thesis of the video regarding the writing of history?
-The video posits that history is interpretive in nature and that historians strive towards an ideal historical truth, which is a goal but never fully attainable due to practical difficulties in writing history.
How does the consensus among historians form and change?
-Consensus forms as more historians write on a subject and agree on the majority opinion. It can change through the discovery of new sources that shed light on events or periods, requiring a reinterpretation of existing sources and potentially altering our view of history.
What is the role of new historical sources in the evolution of historical understanding?
-New sources can fundamentally alter our view of history by demanding a reinterpretation of other sources and taking the new information into account, which may lead to a shift in the consensus about past events.
Can historians who operated under previous consensus be considered wrong if new sources change the understanding?
-No, they cannot be called liars as they were operating in good faith according to established norms. The discovery of new sources may show that their interpretation was not completely accurate, but it does not imply dishonesty or malintent.
How does the video address the idea of historians being both qualitative and quantitative in their source assessment?
-The video suggests that historians should assess their sources qualitatively, considering whether they rely too much on specific sources or if they have discarded certain sources with legitimate reasons.
What impact does the sudden appearance of a new source have on the historical consensus?
-The sudden appearance of a new source can lead to a change in the consensus as it may require historians to reinterpret existing sources and possibly revise their understanding of historical events.
What does Adam Tooze aim to contribute to the understanding of Nazi Germany through his work?
-Adam Tooze aims to change the perspective of Nazi Germany by adding economic perspectives that he believes are lacking, which have been relatively neglected by historians.
How does John Lewis Gaddis view the objectivity in historical representation?
-Gaddis believes that there can be no single standard for objectivity in history, as no two historians will perform the task in the same way, and that historians' judgments reflect the present they inhabit.
What does Roderick Stackelberg emphasize about the relationship between history and interpretation?
-Stackelberg emphasizes that history is interpretation and that writing history is inseparable from interpreting it, even in the selection of facts deemed worthy.
What does the video suggest about the role of narratives in understanding history?
-The video suggests that narratives are essential to our understanding of history and the human place in nature, as they serve as our chief moral compass and influence our actions.
How does the video describe the process of a historian's interaction with historical facts?
-The video describes it as a continuous process of interaction and an unending dialogue between the present and the past, where the historian molds facts to their interpretation and vice versa.
What is the final message of the video regarding historians' pursuit of truth?
-The final message is that historians are constantly trying to find the ideal historical truth not just for the sake of doing so, but also in hopes that it will make society better, by providing a deeper, multifaceted understanding of the past.
Outlines
📚 The Interpretive Nature of History
This paragraph introduces the video's focus on the interpretive nature of history writing. It acknowledges the consensus among historians that history is an ongoing process of interpretation and consensus building, which can change with the discovery of new sources. The video aims to explore the challenges historians face in striving for an ideal but unattainable historical truth. It emphasizes the importance of source evaluation and the potential for reinterpretation when new evidence emerges, highlighting the dynamic and evolving nature of historical understanding.
🔍 The Evolution of Historical Consensus
This paragraph delves into the evolution of historical consensus, discussing how new sources can lead to reinterpretations of history and how historians must reassess their work in light of new findings. It also touches on the idea that historians are not simply wrong when their interpretations are revised; they were operating within the norms of their time. The paragraph introduces Adam Tooze, an economic historian, who has contributed to the understanding of Nazi Germany by focusing on economic factors that were previously undervalued. The discussion highlights the importance of considering various perspectives and the role of historians in shaping our understanding of the past.
🌐 The Role of Narrative and Interpretation in History
The final paragraph emphasizes the inseparable link between history and interpretation, even in the selection and presentation of facts. It references various historians and their views on the subject, including Roderick Stackelberg, Edward Hallett Carr, Peter Novick, and William Cronin. These scholars argue that history is a dialogue between the present and the past, an unending process of interaction between the historian and the facts. The paragraph also discusses the concept of historical objectivity as a contested idea and the power of narratives to affect real change. It concludes by suggesting that historians' work is not just about finding the truth but also about making society better through a deeper understanding of the past.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Historical Consensus
💡Interpretive Nature of History
💡Source Usage
💡Reinterpretation
💡Ideal Historical Truth
💡Cultural and Ideological Turn
💡Economic History
💡Objectivity in History
💡Narrative
💡Moral Implications
💡Historical Representation
Highlights
The video discusses the interpretive nature of history and the aspiration towards an ideal historical truth that is never fully attainable.
Consensus in historical understanding forms through the work of multiple historians and can change with the discovery of new sources.
The reinterpretation of history is often required when new sources are discovered, affecting our view of past events.
Historians operate in good faith and according to established norms, even if later proven wrong by new evidence.
The process of writing history involves a continuous struggle towards an ideal and perfect reconstruction of the past.
The assessment of sources by historians is crucial and can be a topic of its own for discussion.
The appearance of new topics or angles in history can lead to shifts in consensus and a more complete understanding.
Adam Tooze, an economic historian, seeks to change our perspective on Nazi Germany by adding economic perspectives.
John Lewis Gaddis emphasizes the impossibility of a single standard for objectivity in history due to differing historian perspectives.
Gaddis discusses how historians' judgments reflect the present and how history is re-measured with previously neglected metrics.
Roderick Stackelberg asserts that history is interpretation and that writing history is inseparable from interpreting it.
Edward Hallett Carr outlines the continuous interaction between the historian and facts, emphasizing the dialogue between the present and the past.
Peter Novick describes historical objectivity as a contested concept with varying interpretations and disputes.
William Cronin argues for the essential role of narrative in understanding history and its impact on human actions.
Historians aim to find the ideal historical truth to better society and are trusted for their awareness and reflection on the challenges of historical representation.
The video concludes with a quote from Gaddis about learning from the past liberating the learner from earlier constructions.
The video emphasizes the importance of historians' reflections on their work and their role in striving for truth and societal improvement.
Transcripts
this video seeks to serve as a brief
introduction to one of the most
foundational aspects of understanding
how history is written the thesis of
this video is based on an established
consensus among historians on the nature
of history and instead of purely relying
on my words you'll be hearing from
respective professors whose work I base
my understanding of history on in one of
my recent videos I explained the
interpretive nature of history and the
aspiration towards an ideal historical
truth by ideal I mean that it's the goal
but in practice it's one we'll never
quite fully reach due to some of the
Practical difficulties of writing
history no matter how perfect our
reconstruction of the past it will never
fully be the past that has come and gone
as more historians write on a subject a
consensus begins to form that is the
majority opinion however this majority
opinion can also change the most obvious
and fundamental way this happens is
through the discovery of sources that
shed new light on the event or period
This Then often demands a
reinterpretation of the other sources
taking the new source into account which
then can fundamentally alter our view of
history now the consensus might evolve
to claim that those previous historians
didn't get it quite right but we can't
call them Liars they were operating in
good faith in accordance with
established Norms in the field could you
say that they were wrong though well to
do that would need to know what's right
surely
and we can't rightly say that another
news source isn't going to pop up
proving the current interpretation wrong
I mean it's happened once so it's not
crazy to say it could happen again as
you can see we're struggling towards
that ideal and perfect reconstruction of
the past at all times but since we're
never going to get it quite perfect our
only metrics are the consensus which can
have faults as I mentioned and the
historian's application of proper Source
use does the historian qualitatively
assess their source as well do they rely
too much on specific sources have they
discarded certain sources and if so was
the basis for doing so legitimate
there's a whole host more Source usage
could be a whole video on its own now
the sudden appearance of one new source
isn't the only way that history as in
our idea of the past can change some
topics straight up haven't been
addressed at all despite the sources
being there or a certain angles haven't
been covered this will always be the
case there is an impossible amount of
information out there to parse and in
this situation just like the one with
the sudden appearance of a new source
the consensus is likely to change to
Encompass the new topic atom 2s is an
economic historian professor of Columbia
University and director of the European
Institute he's written an excellent book
on the economics of Nazi dictatorship in
the professor's book he talks like most
historians do in the beginnings of their
Works about what's been written before
on the topic and the nature of the topic
itself he says the following
the cultural and ideological turn in the
study of fascism has permanently
remodeled our understanding of Hitler
and his regime it is hard to imagine now
but there was a time not so long ago
when historians routinely dismissed mind
Kampf as a historical source and thought
it reasonable to treat Hitler as just
another opportunistic imperialist those
days are gone thanks to the work of two
generations of historians we now have a
far better understanding of the way in
which Nazi ideology conditioned the
thought and action of the Nazi
leadership and wider Society then he
goes on to explain the reason for
writing his book and the contribution it
will serve towards a more whole and
complete understanding of Nazi Germany
in World War II but whilst we have been
busy unraveling the central ideological
and political threat of Hitler's regime
other crucial strands of the story have
been relatively neglected most notably
historians have tended to downplay or
even ignore the importance of the
economy in part this has been a
deliberate Act of rejection in part the
marginalization of economic history is
self-inflicted the statistical
terminology in which much of economic
history is couched is inaccessible to
readers trained in the humanities and
too little effort has been made by
either side to bridge the gap so as you
can see Adam twos is looking to change
our perspective of Nazi Germany by
adding to the history the perspectives
that he believes are lacking the
perspectives that he is equipped with
here's John Lewis Gadis a cold war
historian Pulitzer Prize winner and a
professor at Yale because no two
historians will ever perform this task
in just the same way there can be no
single standard for objectivity in
biography or for that matter in all of
history there'll never be a consensus on
the reputation of Peter the Great and
any more than there will be on the
length of the British Coastline there
certainly is circumstances though on the
existence of both and indeed on the fact
that the former once sailed along the
ladder
we do it I think by coming back to the
idea of fitting representation to
reality the judgments any historian
applies to the Past can't help but
reflect the present the historian
inhabits these will show the shift as
present concerns do history is
constantly being re-measured in terms of
previously neglected metrics
recent examples include the role of
women minorities discourse sexuality
disease and culture all of these carry
moral implications and they by no means
exhaust the list but the history of
these representations represent has not
changed it's back there in the past just
as solidly as that imprecisely measured
Coastline it's this reality that keeps
our representations from flying off into
fantasy
now me and Gaddis disagree on some
things he's a bit more pessimistic about
consensus than me for example but we do
agree that the history we're right the
representations we create will never be
the past itself
but that we're always striving towards
that unreachable goal and that's what
keeps us in the aggregate moving in the
same direction towards a more complete
historical truth Roderick stackelberg
professor emeritus at Gonzaga University
in Spokane quoting from Hitler's Germany
history is interpretation noisorian
however can justify his or her work
solely on the basis of providing the
essential facts writing history is not
separable from interpreting it even the
most positivist and meticulously factual
approach to history cannot avoid
interpretation if only in the selection
of facts deemed worthy or presenting in
this book I present the interpretation
that I believe is best suited to help
understand this extraordinary historical
phenomenon he goes on to say this in the
next chapter in its shortest definition
history is past Politics the late Edward
Hallett Carr whose work forms one of the
pillars of modern historiography
outlines these Concepts well and is
beautifully written what is history our
examination of the relation of the
historian to the facts of History finds
US therefore in an apparently precarious
situation never navigating delicately
between the Cilla of an untenable theory
of history as an objective compilation
of fact of the unqualified Primacy of
fact over interpretation and the
caribitis of an equally untenable theory
of history as the subjective product of
the mind of the historian who
establishes the facts of history and
Masters them through the process of
interpretation between a view of History
having the center of gravity in the past
and a view of the center of gravity in
the present the historian is neither The
Humble slave nor the tyrannical master
of its facts the relation between the
historian and its facts is one of
equality of give and take as any working
historian knows if he stops to reflect
what he's doing as he thinks and writes
the historian is engaged on a continuous
process of molding his facts to his
interpretation and his interpretation to
his facts it is impossible to assign
Primacy to one over the other he then
goes on to say the historian without his
facts is ruthless and futile the facts
without their historian are dead and
meaningless
my first answer therefore to the
question what is history is that it is a
continuous process of interaction
between the historian and his facts an
unending dialogue between the present
and the past and he goes on to
explicitly say
the facts of History cannot be purely
objective since they become facts of
History only in virtue of the
significance attached to them by the
historian objectivity in history if we
are still to use that conventional term
cannot be an objectivity of fact but
only of relation of the relation between
fact and interpretation between past
present and future here's the late Peter
Novick who in life was a professor at
the University of Chicago
historical objectivity is not a single
idea but rather a sprawling collection
of assumptions attitudes aspirations and
antipathies at best it is what the
philosopher W.B Galley has called an
essentially contested concept
like social justice or leading a
Christian Life the exact meaning of
which will always be in dispute
and finally here's William Cronin a
professor at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison cementing his view
that narrative is essential to history I
wish to record my own conviction
chastened but still strong that
narrative remains essential to our
understanding of history and the human
place in nature because I care so much
about nature and storytelling both I
would urge upon environmental historians
to the task of telling not just
histories about nature but stories about
stories of nature
I do so because narratives remain at our
chief moral compass in the world because
we use them to motivate and explain our
actions the stories we tell change the
way we act in the world
in a very literal sense the frontier
stories helped cause the dustbow
just as the New Deal stories helped
cause the government's response to that
disaster
history in other words and the
narratives told by it has the power to
affect real change historians seldom
write about topics they don't care about
and so the history they write shouldn't
be viewed just as an ordering of the
facts or an attempt at changing or
adding to the historical consensus but
also as attempts at changing the world
and there's nothing Sinister or wrong
about this
historians are constantly trying to find
the ideal historical truth not just for
the sake of doing so but also in the
hopes that it will make Society better
than a deeper multifaceted understanding
of the past that accounts for many
different perspectives leaves us better
equipped for the present and the future
now finally for the end of this video I
want to leave you with this quote from
Gaddis learning about the past liberates
the learner from oppression's earlier
constructions of the past have imposed
upon them
now I hope you don't misunderstand this
to mean that historians can't be trusted
not at all this is precisely why they
can be trusted because they are aware of
these things they spend a lot of time
reflecting on this because they want to
tell the truth as best they can and they
know the challenges that they have to
overcome in order to do so the more
historian seems to have reflected on
this the more I am inclined to trust
them if a historian seeks to elevate
their perspective or view by appealing
to some nebulous singular objective
history that just so happens to agree
with everything they're saying then I
see them for what they are a useless
historian at best and a liar at worst
not all history is created equal
although I say that all representations
of the past are wrong in the sense that
they can never be fully adequate
there are historians out there who are
more wrong than others I think I'll make
a video on how to evaluate the work of
history from the perspective of
historian in the future and at the end
of this video I want to thank all of you
for watching the video but especially I
want to thank my patrons dacted ishluger
I think Sam Raines Lux Scipio or Crimson
crash Raiden Larson and Alexander
Kessler and I want to give a special
thank you to Josh for watching my video
here's some more content for you to
react to
foreign
[Music]
[Music]
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Chapter 1: Introduction to History: Definition, Issues, Sources, and Methodology Part 2
Why We Study Art: Crash Course Art History #1
PART 2
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY- MEANING OF HISTORY,SOURCES OF HISTORICAL DATA & HISTORICAL CRITICISM
3.1 MAKING SENSE OF THE PAST PART1
What History Was, Is, and Will Be: Crash Course European History #50
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)