More On Its All Just Names and Dates

I received this comment on my post on the general misunderstanding of the public in regards to what is history. Here is the comment:

“This is what I can't stand about academia. Yeah, you're smarter than a lot of people. Get off your high horse and listen to that person. They probably will tell you something incorrect or something that you already know, but they might not. By underestimating the public, you dissuade the public from entering your field. History isn't any different than other subjects- you can learn about it, to an extent, on your own. I'm not discrediting the work that you have done, I really do respect it. I aspire to become a historian- but I don't want to lose my humbleness as I work.”

Where do I start with this comment? This person clearly did not understand the point of my previous post. So I’m going to climb down off my “high horse” and clarify some things and in the meantime, hopefully, poke holes in the comment.

First of all, this is a very good example of the public’s misunderstanding of history. Well, it’s not about getting facts correct or incorrect. Though I am told some outrageous things that people believed happened in the past, this is not what historians do. But let me move away from this issue.

Next point, the post wasn’t about me underestimating the general public, but rather the public’s misunderstanding of what it is that historians do in their profession. As far as dissuading people from entering my field, well, I don’t care if the people want to enter my field or not. Just do not tell me what history is!

Now the point about history not being any different than other subjects and that anyone can learn history and they can do so on their own. I will make a concession, like other subjects, history can be learned by anybody. This point is true, but to claim that you can do so on your own, which is what I used to think, is preposterous. One can read books, like those written by David McCullough and text books, which will give a general outline about the past which can be useful, but will leave them lacking a true historical understanding of the past. There are many important things that one cannot learn by reading horrible Cokie Roberts books and other popular histories. For example, sitting around reading books will not teach a person how to properly interrogate primary sources. It will not teach someone how to read what is not written in primary sources. Cokie Roberts, David McCullough, and others will not teach someone how to construct a complex historical argument. Those authors will not even teach someone how to construct a simple argument because they tell stories and don’t debate the past.

Oh yeah, I don’t consider myself a member of academe because I feel that those how are academics have such a mortifying an acerbic disgust for the public. I don’t hate the public, but I am increasingly angered and frustrated by the public’s total lack of understanding of what it is that historians do. Besides I believe that they, academics, are not doing a thorough job writing history for the general public, which is just as maddening as this commenter. Historians should write for the public. History is for the masses, but they deserve good history. David Hackett Fischer, James McPherson, Gordon S. Wood, and Eric Foner are great examples of academics that write for the public. This is the kind of history that the public deserves.

Its All Just Names and Dates

There are many things I love about being a student of history. For instance, I love engaging in debate with fellow students about the “Revolution of 1800,” which brought Thomas Jefferson to the presidency. I also greatly enjoy spending hours reading books and essays and then discussing how each historian crafted his or her argument. I could go on about all that I love about being a historian-in-training because the pleasures of this field of inquiry are boundless.

As with any other academic field, there’s plenty of bad to go along with the good. Though there are plenty of irritants within the field that annoy and anger me (postmodernism being the most infuriating), there are countless attitudes and ideas outside the field that are just as if not more irksome.

What I am talking about is a total lack of knowledge on the part of non-historians (mostly lay persons) about what historical study entails. This is maddening by itself, but when it is accompanied by a sense among non-historians that they know what history is, well, that is just unbearable. Why do non-historians, the public in particular, feel the need to lecture me on what is history? A non-lawyer would not lecture a lawyer or a law student on how to file a motion to suppress. (Though I have seen people with no training in law attempt to lecture a law student on certain legal issues) A non-medical doctor would not lecture a doctor on how best to deal with a certain ailment. So why is it acceptable for non-historians to tell me what it is that historians do and what should be considered history?

One of the many things that non-historians say that annoys me is: “It’s the past and it either happened or it didn’t.” I have been studying history and working toward becoming a professional in the field for over half a decade now and I would argue that if study of history is that simple, then I have wasted years and thousands of dollars on training in this field. This may come as a shock to non-historians, but history is not that clear cut. It is not debating whether something happened or not. One can even argue, as postmodernists do, that we cannot truly be sure whether anything has ever happened. The line of thought that leads to the idea that something either happened or it didn’t arises out sheer ignorance of the past and its students.

Another misconception, which can be coupled with the above mentioned irritant, is the notion that history is the memorization of names, dates, and facts. When people find out that I am a graduate student in a history program they inevitably say either one of two things. One: “I always liked history because I was always good at remembering names and dates.” I would also hear the opposite statement: “I hated history because I wasn’t any good at memorizing things.” Once again, if the study of history centered on the memorization of names and dates, then I have been wasting much of my life in this field of study.

When it comes time for me to explain to someone that history is not as simple as they think I am usually met with blank stares. I inform people that I’m not spending my time memorizing trivia, but rather trying to understand how and why certain events happened. I studying the past in order to understand it and then explain it to others. I tell them that much of what I do is dissecting complex arguments and trying to construct arguments of my own. This is much different than the commonly held view of historical study. So, I am not surprised at the blank stares that greet this revelation. After all, the study of history in our public school system is atrocious. History classes in public schools are structured in such a way that students are only expected to learn names and dates. Not to mention most of the history that the public consumes is written by non-professional historians like David McCullough. Now, unlike other graduate students and professors, I enjoy reading the works of popular historians including McCullough, but these books just tell a story and don’t try to understand the past. Stories are for novelists to write and not historians. I am not a proponent of injecting historical writing with useless and dense theory, but a historian should at least make an argument and then support that argument with inferences drawn from letters, diaries, newspapers, and other primary sources.

I consider myself a populist when it comes to the writing of history. I am one of the few that believes that history should be written for the masses and not for a small population of academics. However, history should be done properly and if it is not then it can be of no use to the public. I also believe that non-historians can write and should be able to write history, but they should conform to the standards that professional historians set for themselves in their study of the past. All in all, I hope the public perception of the study of history changes, but it probably will not.