History Discussions

Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content

(History Question 1) In Search of History
What’s the difference between primary and secondary sources? What does Tuchman have to say about them? How does she use these sources in her writing?

In_search_of_history.pdfPreview the document

Since the difference between primary and secondary historical sources is clear-cut- (accounts from those who were actually at the event vs. summations of these made by later writers), I'll make the two other prompts my focus.

Tuchman's evaluation of their values and preference for the primary sources is the correct stance to take, in my opinion. She's taking the scientific approach rather than a literary one, and treating the primary sources much the way a detective would- primary sources are hard evidence, while secondary sources are circumstantial evidence at best, hearsay at worst. But like a true scientist, she takes nothing for granted in the primary sources either. Many of these (such as journal entries, or first-hand reports) can also be biased by the observer's own beliefs, or what side of a conflict/issue they were on. For that reason, she advises comparing as many primary sources as possible, especially if the historical event was a controversial one. Kind of reminds me of the old saying, "There's three sides to every story- ours, theirs, and the truth". (That's a paraphrase, but captures the gist of it).

I admired her idea of actually traveling to a historic site to get a sense of the size, scale, climate, landmarks. etc. This provides an accuracy a historian would never get from just reading a description or viewing a photograph.I also appreciated her distinctions within primary sources, when she claims that the unpublished ones have the most merit- even such neutral items as reports and orders in government archives.

Tuchman makes it clear that she'll only use primary sources for her work, and again I think it's the only way to proceed. One could use other people's work (secondary) as a frame of reference, to see what's been said so far, and more importantly what's missing or skewed; but they shouldn't be used beyond that. I think the only time you'd want to cite a secondary source is when you are debunking it with facts you've unearthed yourself.

I think the best historians, of which Tuchman is an example, manage to be both good scientists/detectives and good writers. But the science has to come first; otherwise you have historical fiction. There's nothing wrong with that genre, either, but we have to know the difference upfront.

(History Question 2) Just the Facts. Lepore concludes her essay with the provocative question “Is history at risk?” What do you think? What truths did you discover in Lepore’s essay? 

Click here for the article.

I believe that the further back one goes into history, the more suspect it becomes. We have some photo and film documentation of the Vietnam War, for example. There were news anchors and field reporters there in real-time. We don't have that for the Revolutionary War. Because there was a large anti-war movement in the 1960s, we have a broad view of how both our government spun it officially and the dissenting views. John Kerry, our current secretary of state, was a Vietnam vet who gave a scathing review of the war in a Congressional hearing. While there are certainly some anti-Revolutionary documents in existence, it was a far more dangerous enterprise back then, much more likely to be viewed as works of a traitor. So that's my first point- the further back you go, the more likely that the corresponding history is "at-risk" of being faulty.

I agree with Lepore that there's no such thing as a pure history. Even unconsciously, those who record history are going to insert their own values into it. This reinforces the adage of a "picture being worth a thousand words", but we can't forget that a photographer brings their own bias too, and chooses their subject matter.

The most blatant examples I see currently of revisionist history are the slants that liberals and conservatives take on most events. On MS-NBC, you would get the idea that all our current problems in the US are due to George W. Bush's 8-year stint as president. Flip over to Fox News, and it's all Obama's doing (and Bush is mentioned as rarely as possible). Maybe it's more widespread now, but it has always been the case. You write history in favor of your own side. I'm sure we're all guilty of "remembering" moments from our past where we behave a little more nobly than what actually happened. Or sometimes there is such a standout event in a subject's life that it eclipses everything else they ever did. Most of us know that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon. What did he do after that? (What could he do afterwards to change that event from being the first line of his obituary?)

So I have to agree that history has "always been at risk". We'd have to have surveillance footage of every square foot of the planet, going back tens of thousands of years, to ever have all the answers. Unless some alien intelligence we're unaware of possesses that, we may never know if Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone (and a million other mysteries).

(History Question 3) Family Matters. How knowledgeable are you about your family history? Is the information you have reliable? Does a sense of history inform your identify as it does Gates? 

Click here to open the PDF of "Family Matters."

I only know bits and pieces of my family history that go back further than my grandparents' times, but I will share one intriguing story that was researched by a genealogist. The very first Lynch we know of in our family was one Levi Lynch, who immigrated from Ireland and settled in Lincoln County NC in the late 1700s. He was a farmer that married and had several children, and his life was fairly typical and not very noteworthy until his last known act; in 1849, when he would have been at least in his fifties, he disappeared and was never seen or heard from again by anyone in NC. Best guess- he'd heard of the California gold rush. I named my son after him 24 years ago when he was born, and so for now at least the first and the last known man in our lineage is named "Levi".  I doubt however that the original's middle name was "Elvis"...

I never knew my grandfathers. My paternal one died when my dad was just 14, and the maternal one when I was only three- funny thing there about the latter. I can remember how he smelled, to this day- and that's about all, other than a vivid memory of seeing him being put in an ambulance.

Both my grandmothers lived into their 90s, and the maternal one lived with my mom and dad for 25 years. I heard countless stories of the past from her that I still treasure.

Obviously the family history has not been a big part of my identity so far. That one very interesting bit from my distant ancestor mentioned above was reliable, and I wish I could explore that further, and know more about not only him but many others on both sides. Maybe that will be a bigger priority for me in the future.

P.S. I almost forgot a very unusual factor in my own personal history: when I was born in 1960, in Lenoir NC, there was a mix-up in the nursery and I spent about 20 minutes with the wrong mother! An aunt had seen me earlier and caught the mistake when she visited my mom later and saw the wrong baby in her arms. And my mom remembered having the feeling that something wasn't right. My life could have been totally different because of a mistake...

(History Question 4) The Site of Memory. What is the distinction between fact and truth Morrison reflects on in her essay? How does Morrison’s use of autobiography/history in her fiction compare with the relationship between literature and history the other authors (Tuchman, Lepore, and Gates) deal with in their essays?

The_site_of_memory.pdf

Morrison states: "facts can exist without human intelligence, but truth cannot". It's an interesting-sounding concept, but I disagree with it. Truth, according to her usage in the essay, in reference to the "interior life of people who never didn't write it"; this is not truth- it's conjecture. It might be a highly informed and intuitive guess, and it may come close, but it's not truth. Semantically also, I believe Morrison's argument is wrong. Neither word, "fact" nor "truth", would exist if humans hadn't coined them. Either they both exist as concepts outside of human control, or neither do. (And I think it's the latter).

Morrison is somewhat more liberal in her use of autobiography and history than Tuchman or Gates, both of whom rely almost exclusively on primary sources. She admits as much when she mentions "trying to fill in the blanks that the slave narratives left". There's nothing at all wrong with this approach- Morrison writes historical fiction, as opposed to Tuchman who was a pure historian, or Gates who researches the genealogical records for hard data.

I think Morrison and Lepore share the most similar views on history- Lepore also believes that some historical "truth" can be found in novels. Maybe I can, after all, accept this very abstract concept of truth. If a writer has done their research, and can give the reader a realistic setting that the fictional characters act within, perhaps there is some "truth" revealed, if that means a generally accurate portrayal of an environment.

 

 

 

 

 

rich_text    
Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content
rich_text    

Page Comments