Explore the nature, the methodologies used to create it, and the basis for historical evidence.
Key questions:
Can we access truth about the past?
Should we use today's ethical beliefs to judge the past?
What determines our construction of the past?
Why and when is history "rewritten"?
Is there an accepted ‘historical method’ of producing knowledge about the past?
"It is generally accepted that, despite the...repetitions of history, it does move forward from the old to the new." (Richardson 1966)
"Time is the conceptual axis inevitably underpinning traditional forms of Western historical narration, yet its cultural construction is not often explicitly discussed...Recently postcolonial studies gave momentum to the calling into question of categories such as modernity, progress, crisis, revolution." (Source)
Is history a matter of individual agency and action, or of finding and quantifying underpinning structures and patterns?
What is a historical explanation and on what criteria could such explanations be evaluated?
Article from History Today
History Today, 1999
This article caused a huge ruckus. Responses critiquing the article below.
If it is difficult to establish proof in history, are all versions are equally acceptable? Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context? How do we decide?
What is unique about the methodology of history compared to other areas of knowledge? On what criteria can a historian evaluate the reliability of their sources?
Here's the link to the Mandate of Heaven video he mentions. A very different explanation for the rise/fall of empires.
Can we access the truth about the past? Is everything we know historical?
Does history foretell / predict the future? How might prior beliefs be beneficial or damaging to historical knowledge?
Do different perspectives help or hinder us from understanding the past? What and who determines how we reconstruct the past?
BBC Documentary: In the 1930s the Nazi leaders attempted to reconstruct Germany's history. At the Nuremberg trials, Allied prosecutors tried to rewrite the history of the war for different reasons. Was either side successful? How did these attempts affect future generations?
What determines the way in which we construct our visions of the past?
How does the context in which historians live affect historical knowledge?
Can the selection of evidence in history be done objectively?
What determines the way in which we construct our visions of the past?
Is it possible to know who we are without knowledge of the past?
What are the key characteristics of a historian?
Is the possession of basic historical knowledge necessary to navigate the world effectively?
Do historians have a moral responsibility to try to ensure that history is not misused and distorted?
What is the role of imagination in History?
What is the proper subject of history?
What role do artifacts play in creating historical knowledge?
Is ‘living history’ the best way of exploring the past
Do we have a moral responsibility to be historically aware?
Is there a "correct" representation of historical figures/events?
