To What Extent Is There Conflict Between Academic and Popular History?

This paper deals with ways history can be interpreted and influences different interpretations have on society and individuals. This is explored through

Museums serve as a way to connect with the public on a large scale, and the knowledge held within exhibits can be a fruitful experience for those who choose to visit these institutions. Experiencing all that a museum has to offer, no matter how well intentioned, can at times be confusing and overwhelming to the individuals visiting the site. The Smithsonian’s Museum of the American Indian dedicates itself to Native Americans in North and South America, and worked tirelessly with varying tribes to create a new standard. Some visitors and scholars found their work to be successful in design and approach while others found it to be lacking in execution. This institution does not approach Native American history in a familiar fashion; however it does cover an expansive period of time, and produces a great amount of detail while generating powerful emotions.

Eley writes it, the longing “for theoretical purity or some finality of resolution” had decreased among historians. As such, historians debate the use of “historical theories” and these debates tend to be “more focused [on] and concrete historical projects” and how they develop. Overall, Eley argues that theory is relevant in the study of social history and that it is important in our ability to record and understand the events of the past. He recognizes that theory argues in the present-tense, but sees “the lasting outcomes for historians materialized behind these more visible and sometimes grandstanding polemics, as the more focused and concrete historical projects gradually took shape” with the “ultimate payoff” being “the actual histories they

5. a.) Revisionism that stresses the faults of great figures can lead to an overwhelming negativity toward some great heroes who ultimately bring lessons of morality to the table. It perpetuates the idea that human beings, even the best of us, are always crawling with gaping character flaws. But, it also helps us humanize these great figures whose reputations often run away with them. It helps us to remember that political success does not equal morality. b.) This trend in historical writing alludes to a growing sense of both negativity and revolution in our society. As we begin to reject common figures of greatness and replace them with our own versions, modern-day youth culture is beginning to establish their own identity separate from current systems. This straying from the norm of decided importance implies a lack of trust or satisfaction with current

In History: A Very Short Introduction, Arnold weaves together various anecdotes including a 14th century murder, an epic regarding the corybantic slaughter of cats in France, the varying accounts of a Sojourner Truth speech, and many more stories to emphasize why history matters and the problems inherent in its recording. Throughout his novel, he contests the stance taken by Thucydides, a notable Greek historian. Thucydides lived from 460 BCE to 400 BCE and was famous for his work, The History of the Peloponnesian War, which recounted the conflict between Athens and Sparta. Thucydides firmly believed that history was meant to solely record the stories of politics, the state and great men — a belief that John Arnold throughly opposes. With his beliefs and narratives, he created a precedent that negatively influenced historiography for many years to come, for historians chose to disregard the lives and stories of the common man. It was this precedent that the historian Arnaldo Momigliano referred to as Thucydides’ Tower. “Arnaldo Momigliano (a modern author) remarked that having shut himself up in this tower of political history, Thucydides wanted to confine all of us there too” (34). The idea of Thucydides’ Tower itself refers to a metaphorical prison out of which historians could only see politics, war and the actions of great men; Looking out from the tower, their vision was far too narrow to see the lives and stories of the everyday man. Indeed, if Arnold wished to have a

Studying history can be an active, often arduous process, dependent on making assumptions with the evidence available and proving those assumptions to be correct or otherwise. But it can also be an easy task if done incorrectly, one of cutting corners and assuming falsehoods to be true for the sake of convenience. This is the way that many historians, amateur or professional, approach history. Not only does this approach exclude any possibility for well-constructed conclusions to be made, it can also leave the populace ignorant of the truth. In “The Strange Death of Silas Deane”, James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle argue that history is not merely the act of collecting data-rather of making assumptions about the data-through the use of countless rhetorical questions, paragraph organization, and a sardonic tone.

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

In Telling the Truth About History, three historians discuss how the expanded skepticism and the position that relativism has reduced our capacity to really know and to expound on the past. The book talks about the written work of history and how individuals are battling with the issues of what is “truth.” It likewise examines the post-modernist development and how future historians

Historians, as we normally perceive bear the responsibility as scholars who record and research about past events and compiled them together in order to benefit the future generations as an authoritative channel for them to understand and study the past of human kind. Nevertheless, these missions were hardly the main

Not all is known and the facts passed down may not reveal the whole truth. History is biased and can easily be manipulated by those with more power, and it is a modern historian’s job to weed through the commonly accepted information, and try to find the truth. If the truth is not found, then they present alternative theories to broaden the world’s knowledge on the possible course of events in the

Historical Literature has always been a way for people to connect to the past. Students rely on the educational system in order to teach about historical events and present factual data. Ronald Takaki, author of A Different Mirror, triumphs over a history textbook`s narrative by adding the perspectives and personal information from minority groups to further educate his readers. While this text is pretty extensive with detail and memoirs of historical figures, Ireland`s Hunger Museum has reinforced Takaki`s historical details through artwork. As an active member in the community, my experience of the museum has given a personal and deeper connection to the past than the text. As a student of civics, I shared my responses to the artwork using

To bolster this position against contemporary historians, Gallagher used a specific methodology to both undermine other historians while simultaneously buttressing his own positions. Gallagher used a format that, at first, discussed what other historians have asserted in their respective works. Then, Gallagher made his own assertions discounting the positions of his scholarly contemporaries. In this fashion, Gallagher’s book is an exercise in rhetoric

Historical arguments are seldom proved without controversy, while there are certain historical methods that, if not dissipating all questions, give enough credibility to a theory or argument for us to call it proven. In Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, the author linked history development with well-recognized evolution theory and other biological knowledge to back his argument. He also employed the strategies of traditional historians, which included dealing with primary documents from multiple sources, evaluating different explanations as well as appealing to common sense and deduction to support his view.

To begin, a major flaw in the way American history courses are taught is due to the fact that textbooks do not allow students to form their own opinions, for everything is presented as “fact”. This is exemplified through the way early American life is taught. For example, a controversial topic is the specific destination of the Mayflower during the Pilgrim’s journey to America. Some historians believe their arrival in Massachusetts was on purpose to be far from Anglican control in Virginia, while others believe violent storms lead them off track, or there were just navigation errors. The flaw then arises for all textbooks only pick one, and present it as fact to their readers for they believe it is the students’ only way to “learn” about the past (81).

When understanding what public history is and the goals that it wishes to accomplish, the observer must understand the division between the public historian and the academic historian. The first dissimilarity between the two is that the academic historian is employed by an institution or university to deal with the historical issues and questions brought to them by other organizations or institutions of higher education. Continuing on the idea of the separation between the two, public historians differs from that of academic historian through the idea that the public historians questions are brought to them from society. Once the public historian obtains these inquiries, they work to answer them based on the information that they know and that