What is a Historian?

[L Verge]

(01-10-2019 09:32 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Wiki, too, has an answer to this thread:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian
Laurie - in Germany, other than most professions/titles, "historian" isn't a title protected by law, i.e. everyone can entitle him/herself a historian (professional) without any qualification.

Eva - I certainly agree with that last statement. In fact, it is the basis for what prompted me to pose this question. In earning a paycheck, I have dealt with quite a few folks who consider themselves historians -- even among my counterparts at other museums. I don't give most that much credit.

Personally, I never refer to myself as a historian -- I sign letters as "Museum Director," and I otherwise tell people I'm a "used history teacher," because that is what I was trained to be and would still like to be...

[Rob Wick]

Quote: I'd agree that a historian shouldn't in, his/her work, consider the morality of the events.

Mike,

I'm curious as to your reaction to the following. I once presented a paper on James G. Randall's "Blundering Generation" thesis in which Randall said the Civil War came about because of the emotionalism on both sides and both side's failure to compromise (this is oversimplified). In 1949 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., challenged Randall and the other revisionists in an article. Since the article is under copyright, I've extracted from my paper the area where I discuss Schlesinger's objections including his belief that historians were required to consider moral stances.

There was little question that this revisionist view would encounter objections and challenges. One of the most elaborately argued came from the young Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in a 1949 article in Partisan Review, challengingly titled, “The Causes of the Civil War: A Note on Historical Sentimentalism.” Schlesinger argued that the emotionalism that Randall and Craven abhorred had been a trenchant fact throughout American history; “But, if the indictment ‘blundering generation’ meant no more than a general complaint that democratic politics placed a premium on emotionalism, then the Civil War would have been no more nor less ‘needless’ than any event in our blundering history.”

Much (if not most) of Schlesinger’s argument focused on the revisionist idea that slavery was not enough of a reason for war to erupt. Schlesinger charged that to sustain the idea of slavery’s relative unimportance as a cause of the war, Randall, Craven and the other revisionists “must show…that there were policies with which a non-blundering generation could have resolved the slavery crisis and averted war; and that these policies were so obvious that the failure to adopt them indicated blundering and stupidity of a peculiarly irresponsible nature.” If no such policies existed, Schlesinger concluded, it would be unfair to blame the political generation of the 1850s for failing to see what didn’t exist.

Schlesinger argued that if it had indeed been possible to resolve the issue of slavery so as to avoid war, there were three possibilities for slavery’s destruction: through “internal reform in the South; through economic exhaustion of the slavery system in the South; or through some government project for gradual and compensated emancipation.” Schlesinger then showed how none of these aforementioned possibilities could have borne fruit. Internal reform in the South, which never was a serious option in Schlesinger’s view, became impossible when Southern whites quashed discussion of slavery. As for the economic exhaustion of slavery, Schlesinger said that with its history of blaming northern exploitation for its economic problems, no one in the South “would have recognized the causes of their economic predicament and taken the appropriate measures.” Finally, compensated emancipation was rebuffed by slaveowners when Lincoln presented the option in 1862. “The hard fact, indeed, is that the revisionists have not tried seriously to describe the policies by which the slavery problem could have been peacefully resolved.”

So what, Schlesinger asked, lay behind the revisionist’s beliefs? “I cannot escape the feeling that the vogue of revisionism is connected with the modern tendency to seek in optimistic sentimentalism an escape from the severe demands of moral decision; that it is the offspring of our modern sentimentality which at once evades the essential moral problems in the name of a superficial objectivity and asserts their unimportance in the name of an invincible progress.”

Schlesinger argued that the revisionists—that all historians for that matter—were obliged to pronounce moral judgments on actions that ran counter to the democratic ideals that America’s founding documents pronounced, although he warned that that obligation was no license for forgetting that individuals were prisoners of their own times and societal pressures. In Schlesinger’s view, the error of the revisionists was to bend over so far backward to avoid easy and smug moral judgments on historical actors that they renounced any need to consider moral issues in history at all.

In his conclusion, Schlesinger demanded an acknowledgement that every historian “imports his own set of moral judgments into the writing of history by the very process of interpretation….” Whereas Randall had no problem in expressing what Schlesinger termed his “moral feeling” that the abolitionist’s attitude was “unctuous” and “intolerant” Randall (in Schlesinger’s reading) could not express any moral feeling about the cause of fighting to free the bondsman. It was a severe indictment indeed.

Best
Rob

[Steve]

(01-11-2019 01:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  In earning a paycheck, I have dealt with quite a few folks who consider themselves historians -- even among my counterparts at other museums. I don't give most that much credit.

Personally, I never refer to myself as a historian -- I sign letters as "Museum Director," and I otherwise tell people I'm a "used history teacher," because that is what I was trained to be and would still like to be...

Laurie, I'll call you an historian!

[AussieMick]

(01-11-2019 07:37 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote: I'd agree that a historian shouldn't in, his/her work, consider the morality of the events.

Mike,

I'm curious as to your reaction to the following. I once presented a paper on James G. Randall's "Blundering Generation" thesis in which Randall said the Civil War came about because of the emotionalism on both sides and both side's failure to compromise (this is oversimplified). In 1949 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., challenged Randall and the other revisionists in an article. Since the article is under copyright, I've extracted from my paper the area where I discuss Schlesinger's objections including his belief that historians were required to consider moral stances.
....
Much (if not most) of Schlesinger’s argument focused on the revisionist idea that slavery was not enough of a reason for war to erupt. ...

Rob,
As far as Schlesinger’s argument for historians being required to consider moral stances : I dont agree. Morals change and its impossible to place ourselves in the position of, say, the average 21 year old Alabama white in 1860. What would we be thinking and wanting. What about the morals of the "average" President in 1861? What do our morals have to do with the events in 1860 or 1861?

(In my opinion)
There is a danger of confusing morality with interpretation of facts. There is no need for a historian to explicitly state that, for example, slavery is wrong or that genocide is abhorrent. The fact that such actions still occur do not make them any the less objectionable or immoral. The question as to how to deal with them wherever they occur is for the whole human race (historians, politicians, scientists, garbage movers, teachers, students, etc.) to deal with. There is no need for a historian who writes about WW2 to state that the Holocaust was immoral and evil. That’s not to say that the details of the systematic murder of Jews and others should not be documented.
(Perhaps I should say that ‘there should be no need for a historian to state that this or that was evil’. Some historians have, for example, written that the Stalin-imposed famines on the Russian people were justified in order to modernise the USSR. To my mind, in such cases, they need to state their view on the morality of such acts. If they want to claim morality is irrelevant, then I will remember that view when I continue reading their interpretation of the history.)

It is the responsibility of the historian to provide the relevant facts of what occurred. (The question as to ‘what’ facts is a crucial point, though … I’ll come to that, later.) The historian should describe the relevant factors which influenced the outcome. This is going to require a description of the main personalities involved, their families and education, the preceding events, geography, scientific advances, and even the psychology of the community. It will also often be required that the historian will identify factors which are not relevant. These factors would have been raised by others and discussed. The historian will have concluded that those factors played little or no part in the event. The reasons for the conclusion need to be stated. Hearsay, gossip, and anecdotes play a useful part in history, but obviously need to be stated as such.

It is the interpretation of ‘history’ where human frailty comes into being. We are all biased and the result of our education and upbringing. It is difficult to be an independent observer. I recall reading that it is impossible for a scientist to conduct an experiment without his/her own presence having some impact on the result. I think the same applies to interpretation of history.

What facts are chosen?

E. H. Carr (I don’t agree with all he says) makes some good points … He uses the analogy of a fishmonger’s slab where the fish (equivalent to historical facts) are all laid out. Cold and unmoving, all waiting to be used by everyone. He says a written history is NOT like that fishmonger's slab.

Facts “… are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_History%3F

Both E.H. Carr and AJP Taylor would have us believe that there is a danger in using men such as Hitler to ‘carry the can’ for catastrophic events in history. They argue that there were many events which influenced the cause of WW2. Hitler was a murderous racist, but they argue that he was not the sole cause of the Holocaust or the invasion of so many nations. Other national leaders made stupid decisions or failed to act. The League Of Nations was desperate to maintain peace, as indeed were many in their safe occupations and homes. And who can blame them?

With respect to the USA? The Civil War was primarily about slavery. But it also involved States rights and many sensible men and women fought for the South even though they knew slavery to be immoral. Some of those fighting for the Union side considered negroes to be an inferior race. Indeed, this attitude was to continue for many decades. I get the feeling that some historians tip-toe around the basic issue of black and white soldiering. There would have been considerable logistical problems in training, feeding and housing negro soldiers. E.H. Carr and AJP Taylor would almost certainly argue that Lincoln’s attitude to Reconstruction was irrelevant, in view of his death. But all the options and issues affecting Re-construction and the failure to ensure true equality of individual freedom for all citizens are fundamental to the history of the US and the world. These are relevant facts which should be acknowledged in any history of the Civil War.

[L Verge]

Wow! Outstanding and powerful, and I am going to share with colleagues, citing you as an Australian interpreter of history.