History very much depends on how one presents it to those looking to seek out the truth. There are various methods to investigate the past but ‘oral history’ is one method which this exploration will focus on. When one looks at ‘oral history’, it is essential to firstly define the term and investigate its origins before one begins to decipher its use to anthropologists, historians or archaeologists. This essay will attempt to explore where oral history came from, what precisely it entails, such as what it specifically means to an oral historian, reasons why they would choose this method (strengths), problems an oral historian may face (weaknesses) and how a historian would go about collecting data (application). A question which is much needed to be answered before one begins such a conquest as to find out what use oral history is is: ‘What is oral history?’ and ‘Where did it come from?’ There are several definitions within this but at first glance ‘Oral history refers both to a method of recording and preserving oral testimony (with) the intention of creating a permanent record to contribute to an understanding of the past’ (http://www.oralhistory.org/do-oral-history/general-principles-for-oral-history-and-best-practices-for-oral-history)... ... middle of paper ... ...hich can also help explain both the interest in and the challenge of oral historical research’ (Henige, 1982).
Before stepping into the discussion of the purposes of history, we need to know the difference between history and the past. It is important to note that history is not the past. The past is a term used to indicate all the events, which occurred before a given ... ... middle of paper ... ...he rights they have in their hands. History is important in the study of human science because human beings have histories and history consists of a fabric of meaningful human actions. Attention to history pervades the research and choice of topics of practitioners of the human sciences.
He goes as far to set out the steps and within the reasons why historians write the way they do. He says that through the selection of evidence the historian's prejudices are at work, disregarding pieces that do not fit in with their own ideologies. Jenkins was a post modernist historian and his context is important in why he thought they way he did. The post modernist movement was one that believed that historical objectivity was an oxymoron and that history was more of an entertainment than an arm of academic study. The post modernism movement was established after the confusion of the World Wars.
Though at times one can be told to not dwell on the past, the study of history is complete different means. After reading the papers, Why Study History? by Jerry Bentley and Why Study History (1998) by Peter N. Stearns, the many complex reasons of why one should study history were made clear. Both authors addressed that history teaches change and human nature, referencing known reasons that make history relevant in everyone’s life. Author Bentley made his writing focus around the theme of making connections and gaining a basic understanding of the current world around us.
This paper will analyze the texts of John Lewis Gaddis, Nietzsche and the Birth of Tragedy, Modernity and Historical Vision, Living in Modernity, and Hermeneutics. Finally, the paper will argue that history is not largely objective, and is fundamentally shaped through the historian’s subjectivity. John Lewis Gaddis, in his book, The Landscape of History, generates a strong argument for the historical method by bringing together the multiple standpoints in viewing history and the sciences. The issue of objective truth in history is addressed throughout Gaddis’s work. In general, historians learn to select the various events that they believe to be valid.
However many argue there are many similar methodologies used by both practices, along with similar end goals of perhaps learning from past mistakes to counteract future and current problems . It will be difficult to come with a definite answer in this essay whether history is a science as it has been debated by some of the top historians of our century such as Edward Carr. By using sources from Carr and other top philosophers and historians I will aim to outline the meaning of history and science, the similarities in the two, along with the differences. I will also outline the fine line between the subjects as part of my analysis in an aim to come up with as structured of an answer as possible on a very complex topic of debate. To successfully analyses whether History is a science, or more, or less than we must decide on an accurate approach to the term science.
“Philosophy is the history of philosophy”-Georg Hegel. Historicism is one of the important pillars of Hegelian philosophy, which attempts to provide insight on human social activities and thought process. According to Hegel, our thoughts and activities are directly influenced, defined and can understood by their history. Despite its perceived appeal in explaining this ultimate declaration, it has been the source of philosophical debate over the years and have been criticized by some philosophers as the hindrance to progress, that has justified relatively contemporary societal disputes. Fundamental faults are pointed out in Hegelian historicism.
is doubtlessoften dealt with in sociological and cultural studies, but Huxley’s technique of using this problem as a vehicle into the ancient and modern mind isunique. This is why the paper must be viewed in terms of a greater picturethan the individual events described. The methodology to be used takesgreatest use of Huxley’s demonstrations of contrast, and is therefore focusedonthe shifts and variances of perspective. This is often broght aboutin situations where he alternately raises the most miniscule of detailsto the highest pedestal and dismisses the giants of philosophy in commonlists. The purpose of this is to even the bias of time, or essentiallyto provide the reader with a firm grasp of the notion that all great thoughtis still limited by environment.
Therefore, to compare two theories of history, the argument must begin with the facts of the theory and what that theory is used for, and then argue where it might have flaws or not connect history together. Beginning with ethnohistory, which includes anthropology, the beginnings of the different studies of mankind are introduced, when the book then jumps to a postcolonial perspective the views of the future are pointed to the mistakes of the past. Each theory has a purpose to explaining the views and studies of different historians around the world. This essay will compare my views on ethnohistory combined with anthropology versus the views of postcolonial history. To start with anthropology, and outlining the timelines of mankind, one can start cumulating the facts around how humans have evolved throughout hundreds and thousands of years.