We will constantly check our constructions against those of other scholars and against as much evidence as we can include. Note that I am NOT using the term constructions, as does Michel-Rolph Trouillet, to refer to a postmodernist take on the definition of history itself.
In this latter view, "history becomes one among many types of narratives with no particular distinction except for its pretense of truth" [ Silencing the Past , , p. History IS distinctly different from other fictional narratives in that it must be grounded in evidence, not fantasy.
All historical explanation must be grounded in and linked directly to the past through the use of supporting evidence. Like postmodernist history, it is relativistic, but with a difference, for its relativism is firmly rooted in reality. It is skeptical of absolute truth but not of partial, contingent, incremental truths. More important, it does not deny the reality of the past itself. Like the political philosopher who makes it a principle to read the words of the Ancients in the spirit of the Ancients, so the modernist historian reads and writes history in that spirit, with a scrupulous regard for the historicity, the integrity , the actuality of the past.
The second is no more comforting: the past is a foreign country; there is very little we can say about it until we have learned its language and understood its assumptions; and in deriving conclusions about the processes which occurred in it and applying them to our own day we must be very careful indeed.
If we are properly to educate the laity it is not enough to awaken an interest in the past to provide them with an agreeable leisure occupation. It is not enough to provide for them scholarly exercise in the handling of evidence on which they can sharpen their wits.
We have to teach them how to step outside their own cultural skins and enter the minds of others; the minds not only of our own forebears, enormously valuable though this is, but of those of our contemporaries who have inherited a different experience from the past. Such materials are of importance to those studying modern history as well. Weapons, coins, household utensils, cathedrals, statues, and films can cast as much light on the past as diaries, letters, and newspapers.
Whether these historical raw materials are written records or artifacts we refer to them as primary sources. The written histories that historians fashion from these past primary sources in turn become secondary sources for subsequent investigators. Instead I chose people who had contributed their labor. I took much encouragement from African Americans.
When they were first told that their history could not be written, they proceeded to first find and then interpret the necessary documents. Jensen, in Adelson, p. People make their own history-- but only under definite circumstances and conditions: we act through a world of rules which our action creates, breaks, and renews-- we are creatures of rules, the rules are our creations: we make our own world-- a world confronts us as an implacable and autonomous system of social facts.
Thompson, as quoted by Philip Abrams in Tosh, pp. Then step back and look for the constraints and opportunities surrounding that individual, based on social class, race, sex, and other variables. Two people in similar circumstances may have very different historical experiences, based on how society has defined and viewed their roles.
Practical Application: Examine every paragraph that you compose. Does it consider the social context in which these people operated? If not, research more, revise, and get people center stage! History: What's it good for? At the very least, it can supplement the thirty-second sound bites of our day with perspectives drawn from centuries of human experience.
Arnstein, in Adelson, p. Vann Woodward, in Adelson, p. History makes no sense unless it is integrated into the dynamics of the contemporary world. Secondly, you should appreciate the totality of factors that shape human development, including climate and geography, which are insufficiently emphasized by historians. Thirdly, I hope you will realize how cultural conditioning shapes your individual subconscious.
Then, you will have to accept the fact that much of your life is predetermined by global pressures that roll over all linguistic, ethnic, and cultural diversities; building your future is determined by factors beyond your control. Von Laue, Adelson, p. As such, history can widen and deepen our own limited experience. So much can be learned from studying the past carefully that I wish more people, particularly politicians, knew history better than they do.
Everyone makes some kind of a contribution, either negative or positive, in the progress of civilization that, taken collectively, has meaning. I think understanding the historical process prevents divisive and destructive forces from overtaking us.
I think there is psychological value in understanding history, as it gives us ideas of what humans are about and what differentiates them from animals. Fortunately, we have a recoverable sense of what happened in the past that historians can document.
I think that humanity should take some solace in understanding that every generation had its problems, losses, calamities, disappointments, and victories. Tomorrow may be not different in that we will continue to make blunders. Clark, in Adelson, p. But that is what society wants and how it pays for its knowledge. Pyne, in Adelson, p. Is the attention-deficit-disorder of the World Wide Web contributing to our social amnesia?
These theories of social, economic, or political behavior can help historians make sense of dense, seemingly contradictory data. Most practicing historians reject the recent fads of philosophical nihilism and anti-empiricism of "grand theory," postmodernism, deconstruction, and "cultural studies. Obviously the techniques used to study these periods vary.
Early buildings lack written records, so the descriptions tend to depend entirely on archaeological recording and interpretation. Later, written records can be used along with archaeological recording. In more recent periods very details accounts may survive, with drawings, models and photographs to show how building were put together and oral histories can be compiled from those who worked on them.
Anyone who studies buildings in the manner described above is acting as a construction historian, often without realising it. Field, industrial, and building archaeologists are engaged in construction history on a day-to-day basis. Architectural historians and architects working on historic buildings engage with it continuously.
So do engineers and building surveyors working on existing structures. But those interested includes economic and social historians as well. There is so much left to be studied in the field that it is open for research from the professional and amateur alike. Those compiling local histories or family histories may find they have much to contribute.
Many of the people interested in construction history are also actively involved in the conservation and repair of old buildings. However Construction History is the study of the development of the building industry. There are separate journals devoted to new repair techniques.
We do take articles on discoveries about construction history made when carrying out repairs and conserving buildings, but we ask that such articles carefully avoid describing repair work carried out by the authors and concentrate and on what the work can tell us about how people built in the past.
We are however interested in the history of repair as that is part of the development of the history of construction. Construction history is not blind to the importance of conservation and repair work, but it is focused on establishing and studying the history of building construction and not on how buildings should be repaired. Nevertheless an understanding of construction history is vital for all those involved in the maintenance and repair of historic structures.
There are several ways to make this a successful assignment. First, you might take any of the theses presented in the book and use information from primary sources to disprove it—the "trash the book" approach. Or, if your professor has said something in class that you are not sure about, find material to disprove it—the "trash the prof" approach and, yes, it is really okay if you have the evidence.
Another approach is to include new information that the authors ignored. For example, the authors say nothing about omens. If one analyzes omens in the conquest, will it change the theses or interpretations presented in the textbook? Or, can one really present a Spanish or Mexica perspective? Another approach is to make your own thesis, i. If you do work with the Mexican materials, you will encounter the harsh reality of historical research: the sources do not always agree on what happened in a given event.
It is up to you, then, to decide who to believe. Was he painting an unusually rosy picture of his situation so that the Spanish King would continue to support him? It is up to you to decide. Have the courage to own your own history!
There is no question that the idea of the heroic nature of the Spanish actions is clearest in his account. But does this mean he was wrong about what he said happened and why? The Mexica accounts are the most complex since they were originally oral histories told in Nahuatl that were then written down in a newly rendered alphabetic Nahuatl.
They include additional Mexica illustrations of their version of what happened, for painting was a traditional way in which the Mexicas wrote history. Think about what the pictures tell us. In fact, a good paper might support a thesis that uses a picture as evidence. Again, how reliable is this material?
One way to think about the primary sources is to ask the questions: 1 when was the source written, 2 who is the intended audience of the source, 3 what are the similarities between the accounts, 4 what are the differences between the accounts, 5 what pieces of information in the accounts will support your thesis, and 6 what information in the sources are totally irrelevant to the thesis or argument you want to make.
0コメント