Public Historian Ethics

History is story we tell ourselves as Khalil Gibran Muhamad defined it , or Story we tell ourselves about how past explains our present and the way story is told is shaped by contemporary needs as Aurora Levnis Morales nicely put it. Likewise it could be stated that we become stories we tell ourselves. Thus, history has role in construction of our identity. Given the importance of the story for us, could it be different story then the one we are told in mainstream media and thought in schools? The one that empowers us instead of enslaving us?

History records show an understanding for whether that be liberal arts, critical thinking or just studying the past. In the article, “A Future for the Liberal Arts,” by Jacques Barzun, talks about the need to see history from top to bottom for society. To appreciate the liberal arts, people must understand the importance of history and what effects history has on imagination through the liberal art prospective. Citizens should understand the purpose of artifacts and historical evidence behind a painting. History is more than just words, it paints a picture, not only does it tell us where to go, but rather give us

A code of ethics stands for a set of principles of conduct set within an organization to assist or guide employees to making decisions and adhering to ethical behavior. It’s a set of guidelines that must be followed to make ethical choices when conducting work related matters. Code of ethics is an organizations form integrity. This paper will discuss what an appropriate code of ethics is, and summarize the features of deontological, consequentialist, and virtue of ethics in a professional code of ethics. It will also analyze both the advantages and disadvantages of each approach to ethical theory in the context of the workplace.

Those thought to be ethical or moral are described in terms of their values in regards to honesty, integrity and good character. Our ethical conduct originates from our values which are greatly influenced by our morals; they provide guidance and are our standard for the ways in which we carry out and view right and wrong decisions. For these reasons, personal ethics are said to be our foundation and, as such, often influence how we administer ethical codes of conduct in our personal lives, and the ways in which we carry out our organizational duties. The normative foundations of public service ethics are those standards used to justify and defend one’s conduct, i.e. reasoning about obligations, consequences and ultimate ends in specific situations. In addition to personal codes of conduct, leadership in the public sector requires the ability to apply ethical reasoning based on formal controls and technical standards.

Historians produce knowledge for us to learn from in the form of written documentation showing what people have done in the

The roll of ethics in public administration is based on the administration; administrators should be value-free when they implement public policy. I will discuss why ethics should be based on the administration and, why it should not be based on each individual worker in the administration. I will discuss Weber’s stance on values in bureaucratic organizations, what Macintyre suggests, and what Hummel and Goodsell would conclude about values in public administration. Most people do not understand what an administration deals with everyday on an individual basis. They might think that an administration is supposed to make the best ethical choices, but that is not the case. People who are outside the administration might think that administrators are supposed to use everyday values when implementing policy, but that is also not the case.

She carries the audience through her argument in a logical sequence. First, she makes her claim that student do not know history and explains her reasons (250). She then elaborates on what history students are taught and what exactly is wrong with the methods by which they learn (251). After this, she explains the job of a historian to the reader – how historians confront primary sources to “make some sense of what once happened” (252). To end the article, Simon describes how students can better learn history through exploring primary sources (253). This structuring and organization helps the reader to understand and to believe Simon’s

Throughout time, there will continue to be a considerable divorce between academic and popular historians. As Margaret Conrad argues, popular historians have established the tension, by recreating “historical films without the involvement of trained historians”. This underscores the troubling gulf that sometimes separates public academics approaches to the past. Academic historians have been “too long focused” on professionalism, and discarded “generating” a “dialogue” (Conrad) with their contextual audiences. The substantial dissolution between academic and popular historians is evident in a range of sources, essentially from Michelle Arrows to Herodotus and Thucydides to Bury.

Kyle, I like how you pointed out that Haskell stated that he agrees with Novick on several issues, but that it is the issue of objectivity and its view where they differ. Personally, I think Haskell’s attempt to show the reader that he shares common ground with Novick. While, I agree that “responsible research” as you stated, can attempt to show an objective viewpoint, I think there will always be some opinionated motive to a historian’s research. The question that I would like to ask is if neutrality is shown, as Novick suggests, through “generations of historians” that are merely writing their histories because of the views of their predecessors (Novick, 16)? Regarding Novick’s views on this point, I feel that a historian who lived during a period that they are writing about will hold a different perspective than a historian who was born after and writes about an event later. In regards to presenting some form of objectivity, I ponder that a historian can do this by stating their personal bias and including the stance of other historians on the same topic.

The Lewinsky Scandal… A perfect example as to why we cannot accept everything at face value before carefully examining it first. Everyone thought President Clinton was behaving himself in the White House, but, as it turns out, he was most definitely not. This can be the same for history. We must carefully consider different aspects of articles so that we do no make the mistake of believing everything we read. In order to fully understand an article, we must understand the author that wrote it. It is necessary to examine prejudices, sources, information left out, and missing background information before accepting an article. This method of critical analysis allows us to better understand the article

To know the past is to know the future. In his essay Knowing History and Knowing Who We Are, David McCullough argues about the importance of studying and teaching history. In his essay, he explains that there are three main points about history: character and its effect upon destiny, our failure of teaching the future generation, and the importance of learning and listening to history. David McCullough strongly advocates that audience should start to listen to and teach about the past in order to learn about the way a person’s character can affect their destiny.

Historians believe they need to find the truth. They make arguments, write papers, and give lecture on what they are saying is the truth. Historians want to learn what happened. This is important, because history teaches many lessons. Students of history agree or disagree with historian's arguments and what they say happened or what is the cause of some event.

A major case of this trend is the views of Crazy Horse the Man of the Oglala Sioux and George Armstrong Custer. The perspective of Custer and Crazy Horse is being viewed from different angles. Is Crazy Horse validated for killing soldiers, or was Custer doing what was best for The United States. Many controversies are raised from the two arguing opinions, and Historians argue over both. What do historians feel now as opposed to the 19th Century view of historians and the public? The bias from the time of the attacks to the bias that we face today can be said to have changed, and how have historians documented this, and prepared to defend the ideas they raise?

Of course, no one can force historians to do. They can interpret on historical events and incidents. That’s normal, but it has to have its limits. For example, historians can interpret on Homer and his works, and some of them may say that Homer was a liar, and some say “not.” This is OK with me. But, interpreting history scholarly is not that easy. For example, everybody knows Holocaust. You know it, too. I will ask you a question. If an historian comes up with an idea that Holocaust was not true, what would you say? A historian came up with this idea, and some people have supported him in this idea, too. So, do you agree with that historian? His name is David Irving.

There are a variety of different ethical systems that have developed of the course of millennia. However, even though the subject has been covered so thoroughly, it is still heavily debated. The varieties of ethical systems that are in existence look at various ethical problems from different perspectives and can be applied differently in different circumstances. Because of the subjective aspects to applying ethics, they can be as much an art as they are a science. Ethics are something that must be practiced and really cannot be perfected. In this way, studying ethics is a continual process that does not really stop. This paper will argue that ethics are the most important subject that an individual can pursue.