Carry on Clio

The below originally appeared as a post on an internet forum. Several people had attacked History, and I was provoked into quickly penning a manifesto expounding on why it should be studied. Because of my haste, it by no means represents a complete distillation of my thoughts on the matter. However, as they are my reflections after spending a year at uni, I wished to preserve them for future interest.

Those in possession of both 'half a brain cell' and even a cursory knowledge of History know exactly why it is worthy of respect. Here I'm going to attempt a brief defence. On a fundamental level, having no appreciation of History leaves you seeing the world in only two dimensions as it were. Take a British example, say the troubles in Northern Ireland. It truly is impossible to gain a full understanding of the conflict without embedding it in the context of ongoing historical processes. An individual merely looking at the present would have no hope, when antagonisms stretch back as far as the Jacobean plantations. To successfully act in the present we need to view the third dimension: the past.

In this way, History and Politics go hand in hand. Some scientists underestimate the value of History because they are ignorant of the type of questions it might be capable of answering. Popular notions of History focus predominantly on biographical questions which, although interesting, are comparatively trivial. True historians, however, are interested in more abstract, important entities. For example, 'society'. Werner Sombart for instance wrote Why is there no Socialism in the United States? Examining this conundrum, like many historians he probed political, economic and social phenomena over both the long and short term. Consequently, his analysis encompassed the structure of the American electoral system ('first past the post' was detrimental to third parties), the contemporary boom in the American economy, and the fact that America - as a country created by immigration - was free of the 'dregs' of feudalism. Lots of important analysis like this has been carried out. To give another quick example, Max Weber proposed that the Industrial Revolution had started in European rather than Asia because Protestantism was more conducive to capital accumulation and industry than Confucianism. Historical knowledge is dynamic, being added to all the time. Proving E.H. Carr right when he called History "an unending dialogue between the present and the past", as recently as 2000 Kenneth Pomeranz has further added to this debate.

How could you possibly class issues like these as unworthy of examination? Such attempts are key to understanding not just our own societies, but the world as it is. Furthermore, James Loewen is worth considering. He argues that the History curriculum in American schools is grossly distorted, the 'facts' refracted through an idelogical prism: a grand narrative of progress allied to an unshakable belief in the American Dream . Loewen, however, does not let this use of History put him off the subject. This is because he appreciates the benefits of its teaching in creating a reflexive, self-aware citizenry. He disputes various issues, all of which highlight the importance of a sense of History in identity construction. One illustration will have to do. He demonstrates that by teaching the lie America has always been a meritocracy from colonial times to the present day, History lessons actually help entrench and replicate inequality. This is because students then believe - perfectly logically - that the reason for their poverty is lack of ability; for haven't they already been taught that there is an equality of opportunity? In reality of course, social factors help reproduce poverty over generations, but students have already been brain-washed into a lamentable, passive acceptance. By contrast, Loewen points out that an objective study of American economic History would politically empower students, equipping them with the facts to tackle an injust system.

I would finally like to address the inane relativism which many seem to have embraced. I honestly read one critic of History say: 'Hitler may have been a good man. You never know. Churchill may have been a genocide fanatic.' I suspected that in reality the person didn't truly believe this. But if they did, then they should know that the spectrum of permissible interpretations from the sources is necessarily circumscribed by the number of valid interpretations. And no reasonable person would conclude that Hitler was a 'good man' when there is a mountain of evidence to show he orchestrated the deaths of six million Jews. Considering the sources, it would be a total non sequitur. Ignorant speculation such as this is not just deeply insulting, it's dangerous. Just look up the Irvine libel trial back in 2000 (which reminds us that such opinions can be held by so-called historians) or Richard J. Evans' In Defence of History which shows the possibility of true historical knowledge. Here he deploys a range of cogent arguments, not least highlighting the contradiction that if we believe texts really are absurdly ambiguous, how is it possible that we carry on with our normal lives, successfully conveying meaning all the while via a range of media?