What is the point of history?

[razboz]

What is the purpose of history as an academic subject for you? Is it a mere intelectual pleasure or do you think that it has intrinsic value in terms of revolutionary struggle?

My history teacher said something along the lines of "History is useless. We always say that we can learn from history, yet history is full of examples of this not happening". I would tend to agree witht this. I think history does not have any value, apart from being able to note trends in world events.

Having said this i do think that it is possible to learn from mistakes. However this is entirely pointless as even if a few could do this, they'd have a hard time telling the majority. This is further enhanced by the individuality of every situation.

Thoughts? Comments?

[Black Dagger]

Good topic :D


Originally posted by razboz+--> (razboz)I think history does not have any value, apart from being able to note trends in world events.[/b]

History as a concept has immense value, IMO histories are amongst the most valuable and powerful products of human society.

To me at least, the idea that 'we' dont learn from history is patently absurd, we are living the 'lessons' of history right now; the present is a direct product of the past, it has shaped and is shaping the present constantly.

It's not as simple as the whole human race never repeating the same mistake once or even a million times, but rather that across the planet, every day people lives are changing because of the past, because of what has been achieved and because of what has been lost; you cannot separate the functioning of social reality into 'past' and 'present', reality is a process of interplay between the two, that it is one of the locomotives of human development, memory! And along with memory, the ability to synthesise information, to innovate and develop ideas, human beings are continually engaged in this process mentally, and for revolutionaries in praxis (putting theory in to action).

I think it is doubtful whether historical 'lessons' can be forced on to society as a totality (either way, that certainly doesnt sound desireable!), but that does not mean that people arent hip to whats gone down and what is goin on right now! That does not mean that people are alienated from the concept of history (or from 'the past', as a collective entity and to the histories of specific groups or struggles etc), even if many are alienated from the dominant histories.

However there are some who DO want people to forget history, to forget the triumphs and inspirations of the past, as well as the crimes of the bosses, the pigs and the rich. The bosses want people to accept the present social order and their place within it as a permanent fixture of human existance rather than to see the status-quo as impermanent, indeed fragile and historically recent. History is valueless only if we are alienated from it, only if we are not using it for ourselves - for each other.

This brings me to my next point, histories are an immense source of inspiration and empowerment for billions of people, revolutionaries more than any other group of people in society draw inspiration (and yes, lessons) from history.

Why? Because history shows that we are not alone.

History is full to the brim with (amongst other things) radical social change, a constant reminder of the power present within exploited and oppressed peoples when we join together and organise to kill our oppressors and exploiters - when we take our lives into our own hands, and struggle as revolutionaries to overthrow the system of our exploitation. Thus, histories are vital in the building of revolutionary consciousness.

At the same time history also shows the barefaced brutality of authority, the state, capitalism and all other historic hierarchial and exploitative systems (including the histories of so-called 'socialist states'). However 'history' can also be used to justify, reinforce and naturalise the current social order; capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy, such is the case with the orthodox histories of most 'settler-states', european empires and so forth.

Also, when i use the term 'history' i am referring to oral as well as written texts, and thus with an awareness of the plurality of the concept of 'history' itself; as well as an awareness of the colonised, gendered and class-biases rife within orthodox histories.

So i reject the histories of the academy, of white supremacy, of patriarchy, of the ruling class.

'History' is thus an interpretation of the past, rather than the past itself. That does not make history valueless, or less valuable, its simply an acknowledgement of the limitations of history as a concept. The past cannot be recreated comprehensively (or indeed meaningfully) simply by access to fancy archives, or the juicy journal of some european general, or of any one particular source or group of sources, primary sources are no exception.

Why is 'the past' so hard to re-create? Well firstly because what professional historians call the 'historical record' (meaning, what sources have survived from 'the past') is woefully incomplete, and in most cases permanently so.

'The past' is not the sum of the written sources that have survived from any given period.

On the contrary, more often than not there is a massive bias (sometimes deliberate, sometimes not) in just what evidence has survived. Historically, men have not been too interested in recording the actions and achievements of women, result... women appear only in the footnotes of much of the 'historical record'.

Another long-standing bias in the 'historical record' is towards the words and actions of the ruling elite. Not only the rich and the bosses of contemporary times but the monarchs, lords, autocrats and aristocracy of thousands of years heretofore. It is no accident that the majority of the 'historical record' is focused on the lives of the elite of bygone eras, writers of 'history' have regularly been patronised by the wealthy and powerful of their day.

Indeed it was not until the 1960s and 1970s that some historians even began to start thinking let alone writing what is termed social histories (that is, so-called 'histories from below'), history that went beyond the 'big' things like war and the relations between nation-states, empires, monarchs, leaders and such; histories which engaged with feminist, race and class conciousness, the de-colonisation of Indigenous histories; histories which attempted to put the so-called 'facts' of the 'past' and the 'historical record' to the sword.

So sources survive largely by chance, or perhaps at the will of some archivist, museum, university and so forth. There is certainly no divine rule in nature which states that reality must constantly be recording itself in a comprehensive fashion for the benefit of tomorrows historians!

Some stuff from 'the past' survives, most doesn't, and a lot of the stuff that does survives for a purpose (or to serve one) - or often as a result of a societies structural biases (i.e. written documents produced by the authorities, such as the state, police, monarchs, the rich etc. are much more likely to survive than almost any other written documents produced - which necessarily produces 'silences' in the source record); but certainly not for the purpose of adequeately re-creating a past time or place.

Thus the idea that 'the past' as a totality is just out there.... somewhere... waiting to be discovered and recorded by an historian is nothing but a fantasy, i.e. fuck those annales school and rankean muthafuckers. ;)

That doesnt mean that sources are not useful (of course they are! They are the touchstones of history), but that they are necessarily limited, both in perspective and content such that they cannot be used to genuinely replicate 'the past', merely to fashion a representation of it (the authors).

Yet many historians still write histories as if they are actually re-creating 'the past', rather than acknowledging the limitations of the 'discipline', their work, and the effects of their own biases and those of the sources they utilise, all in the name of something fanciful called 'Objectivity'! A myth which has been used to suppress and marginalise radical histories for centuries. Of course some historians do make allusions to a more self-reflexive approach, but few actually put it into practice in the body of their writing.

Subjectivity is a beautiful thing! Or at least it can be.

Subjectivity needs to be actively explored thoroughout a text (and i dont mean just in the intro or the conclusion!), pretending that you are above it, and that other historians are 'above it' is fantasy, oi did i say fuck y'all to those rankean and annales school muthafuckas yet? If not, fuck you!

There is no such thing as objective, apolitical history; most histories are necessarily political, and as revolutionaries we should not be ashamed about acknowledging our politics, and the influence they will have on our writing, indeed that is precisely what we must do! Engage with feminist analysis, engage with criticial race theory, queer theory and de-colonialist analysis, its not something that should be an 'add-on' to other more scholarly methods of producing history, it's really core to the whole thing, well at least from my perspective ;)



razboz
What is the purpose of history as an academic subject for you?

History has no intrinsic 'purpose', rather it is a vehicle for the 'purposes' of any given author of 'history'; sometimes that can be beautiful, sometimes not.

However that does not make history valueless, or less valuable, its simply an acknowledgement of the limitations of history as a concept.

[beabuenosaires]

I had so much to say to this topic, but I'm finding that black rose said nearly everything I wanted to. I am obsessed with history. It is an inspiration for me. It has also molded me in my political, moral, and philsophical beliefs. History has made me who I am as a person, so I think it's very important to teach in schools. I took it each year it was mandated, and this year I am taking 3 history classes as electives. I always want to learn more.

Bea

[razboz]

Good topic

Youd be amased how little i get that <_<

Black Rose you say that much of our history comes from source which are biased. If our only perception of a cerain event come from this event, how can we determine there even is another explanation without any further evidence?

If my reasoning stands, then history is pretty much all bunk (to paraphrase JFK). Though admitedly we have been able to write what you call "social histories" in the recent past, but most of these are very recent. We have virtually no data concerning older social histories. This means that many of the revolutionaries of old must have been fumbling around i the dark. Indeed the only evidence they had (im talking very late 18th and early 19th century here, which were the formative yearrs of many revolutionary ideologies including Communism and Anarchism) came from these biased reports of the past which as you said very correctly, reflects the past of the ruling classes. The clichèd saying goes "History is written by the victors" is probably very very true of the past. Therefor for the heyday of revolutionary struggle of the 19th and very early 20th century the revolutionaries were entirely unsopported by historical precedents. Much of what they were doing was unprecedented in recorded history. Therfore the trend of historical interest in revolutionary struggles is quite recent. I would consider this to discredit history as a significant prop for any struggle.

I am also an avid historian. However i beleive that it has mostly only an intelectual interest in that it is interesting to study and analyse, but of no value to us today because the basic premise it is built on is untrue. This premise is that all the facts we study are in fact true. This is far from true as black rose outlined very clearly. Things as recent and well documented as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are not even old enough to be history, are surrounded in a cloud of uncertainty and conflicting messages. The same goes for the USSR, WWII and pretty much everything in history.

Another thing which reduces the value of history as a relveant are today is our inability to react to it. Accepting we can even beleive any part of what constitutes "history" how can it possibly impact anyone? We can look at it under every angly, from above, form below, but we cannot draw any conlcusions. It would be like observing a scientific experiment without being able to draw any conclusions. Lots of pretty lights and puffs of smoke, but no actual meaning or sense.

Im not sure i was entirely clear, sorry about that.

Mmmh i realise in retrospect that perhaps my second pargraph is factually incorrect. Revolutions have been an integral part of european history for a long time. I am dubious, however, at how well these were documented and how widely people knew about them at the time.

[Black Dagger]

Hehe, you seemed to have agreed with many sections of my post yet you&#39;ve still reached the opposite conclusion, i.e. history is valueless&#33; Very interesting indeed&#33; :lol:

I&#39;ve got to go to bed, but i will reply in detail tomorrow :)

Yay an interesting debate in the history forum&#33;

[manic expression]

You can&#39;t know where you&#39;re going if you don&#39;t know where you came from.

Not only does history give us a perspective of the past, it gives us lessons that we can apply to the world today. It also serves to give meaning to the present, since if we were to ignore history, we would just be a bunch of people on a rock in the middle of space, with not real connection or shared history.

[Councilman Doug]

We have virtually no data concerning older social histories.

There are plenty Marxist influenced histories of ancient societies that utilize writings of those sympathetic to the underclass.

Michael Parenti&#39;s Assasinationg of Julious Ceasar is just as important to our current situation, almost as important as the very recent past.



This means that many of the revolutionaries of old must have been fumbling around i the dark... Therfore the trend of historical interest in revolutionary struggles is quite recent.

Engles&#39; The Peasant War in Germany was written over a century after the events analyzed and provided a clear example of historical materialism in action.

The dominant form of hostory may have always been dectated by the intrests of the ruling class, but there were always those willing to challenge them.

These revolutionaries were certainly not fumbling in the dark.



Things as recent and well documented as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are not even old enough to be history, are surrounded in a cloud of uncertainty and conflicting messages.

The facts are avaibale, though they are mostly ignored by the mainstream press, espesiouly popular news programs.

It has usually been true that to better history, one has to dig beneath what is the previlent veiw.



We can look at it under every angly, from above, form below, but we cannot draw any conlcusions.

How can conclusions be drawn about social issues without analyzing history?

If you want to understand why one group is poor and one is rich, you cannot only judge based on current conditions because it could easily lead to false images of inharent supremacy.

When the history of the two groups is understood, it is much e
asier to judge how the rich were able to acheive their power.



I am dubious, however, at how well these were documented and how widely people knew about them at the time.

There were more then a handful of prolatarian newspapers that recorded the current struggles in detail.

[bcbm]

If my reasoning stands, then history is pretty much all bunk (to paraphrase JFK).

No, it is biased- there is a difference. All history, whomever is recording it, carries the bias of that author or time period, but that doesn&#39;t mean what they say is false, just that it needs to be analyzed in this light and perhaps taken with a grain of salt, or run up against histories from the other side in order to come to a more accurate recording of what really happened.


We have virtually no data concerning older social histories. This means that many of the revolutionaries of old must have been fumbling around i the dark. Indeed the only evidence they had (im talking very late 18th and early 19th century here, which were the formative yearrs of many revolutionary ideologies including Communism and Anarchism) came from these biased reports of the past which as you said very correctly, reflects the past of the ruling classes.

Eh? I think there were any number of historical recollections outside the ruling class, although probably (but not necessarily) in oral form. Those in the 18th and 19th centuries surely recalled the insurrections of the recent past, and could draw from those who were putting out radical ideas during that period.


Therefor for the heyday of revolutionary struggle of the 19th and very early 20th century the revolutionaries were entirely unsopported by historical precedents. Much of what they were doing was unprecedented in recorded history.

Not really. People have been getting pissed off at their rulers, fucking them up and forming more egalitarian societies since civilization began.


I would consider this to discredit history as a significant prop for any struggle.

Yes and no. I think history can be very enlightening about what not to do, but it can equally be a chain around the neck of some "revolutionaries," who can see no way forward but to continually mimic the failed attempts of the past.

[chimx]

Is it a mere intelectual pleasure or do you think that it has intrinsic value in terms of revolutionary struggle?

Most historians, and nearly all credible historians, do not write history because of its value for revolutionary struggle. It is a way of understanding our cultures, the way we came to be who we are today. It has community value.

Obviously modern history also can enlighten us on policy, cultural misunderstandings, etc. etc.

[razboz]

Every one here is saying that history has a value because it can teach us about the past and abou the mistakes that have been made so that we can not make them anymore. I wont bother quoting but i think that&#39;s the general gist of it.

I disagree.

A simple study of historical events show us that rulers (because it is rulers who are documented) will make exactly the same mistakes their predecessors have made, and this in full knowledge of the history. We are simply incapable of taking data from the past and using to make predictions of the future. I beleive there are two reasons for this. The first being that we are often unwilling to do so. I think this because if we highlight the failures of the past we can occasionally bring to light some of the ones of the present. In doing so rulers cna have their power undermined by this information. SO it can be conveniently ignored or forgotten. The second reason is that every situation is unque, and if we attempt to predict the occurance of any event, basing ourselves on past ones we will have a very inaccurate idea of what is going on. Ôur presnet and our past are simply too complex to be either fully understood or compared.


I will also disagree when you say that it biased and not innaccurate. Ancient history especially is full of huge discrepancies and examples of ballant misinformation. A ruler might declare a victory when there was a defeat, for example. Also events can be entirely made up, in times where legend and reality where intertwinned to tight to differentiate. Thus we see that a lot of the history we might beleive to be factual is in fact supported by accounts from people who would happily (and often did) add dragons and fairies and so on to enrich the story. Marco Polo for example tells us of mythical beasts he &#39;met&#39; in the orient such as dog headed men or giant animals, of which there is no other mention or any scentific data corobate.

I think that the parts of history that are inaccurate and biased can be identified as such, but we cannot find the actual real parts. History is big mess. In interesting one perhaps, but one from which extracting the truth would be like finding a needle in a haystack.

[bcbm]

A simple study of historical events show us that rulers (because it is rulers who are documented) will make exactly the same mistakes their predecessors have made, and this in full knowledge of the history.

Yes, but not always. Some do learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. Some people being unable or unwilling to learn from what has happened before does not mean all people are- this is true even with any given individual within their own lifespan. Some will repeat their mistakes, others won&#39;t. That&#39;s no reason not to pay attention to them&#33;


The second reason is that every situation is unque, and if we attempt to predict the occurance of any event, basing ourselves on past ones we will have a very inaccurate idea of what is going on. Ôur presnet and our past are simply too complex to be either fully understood or compared.

One shouldn&#39;t try to force a square peg in to a round hole, but to say that no comparisons can be made between past and present situations because they are "unique" seems disingenuous. As you said yourself, people keep repeating the same mistakes, so obviously these situations arise often enough, and can be compared. Not exactly, sure, but things can be gleaned from a look at what has happened before, though they should, as always, be taken with a grain of salt.


I will also disagree when you say that it biased and not innaccurate. Ancient history especially is full of huge discrepancies and examples of ballant misinformation. A ruler might declare a victory when there was a defeat, for example. Also events can be entirely made up, in times where legend and reality where intertwinned to tight to differentiate. Thus we see that a lot of the history we might beleive to be factual is in fact supported by accounts from people who would happily (and often did) add dragons and fairies and so on to enrich the story. Marco Polo for example tells us of mythical beasts he &#39;met&#39; in the orient such as dog headed men or giant animals, of which there is no other mention or any scentific data corobate.

You&#39;re missing the forest for the trees.

[Invader Zim]

A most interesting thread.

I study history at university level and am in the middle of applying to study for a masters and I LOVE history but for the sake of debate I would like to propose that is is worthless, but perhaps from a different perspective than most people consider from the off. Though note this is devils advocacy, not my own personal opinion; perhaps later I will rubbish this position myself if no one else does so. I think that this debate is of vital importace to understanding the value of history and should be discussed.

This primarily is directed at Black Rose (because of the point about bias), but anyone who has an opinion please do chip in.

Post-modernist views in regards to history, ethics and philosophy revolve around the ideal that there is no absolute truth. Post-modernists see history as a subject which no longer holds much in the way of value. This, post-modernists argue, is because ‘facts’ lack any true objective basis, thus pointing out the relativity of knowledge. In terms of history this is idea is supported by the position we, in the present, cannot go back and confirm what happened in the past. We, in the present, must rely upon the recollections, accounts and opinions of others regarding historical events. Post modernists argue that any such accounts are bias and any attempts at interpreting such events are also biased.

A significant portion of the criticism levelled at historians and the discipline of history is that historians can not be truly objective, despite any amount of effort. Post modernists argue that a historian’s cultural back ground, race, gender, political view, nationality, class and a host of other variables mould their interpretation of the past. Of course individual examples of bias and even incorrect information are easily detected by fellow historians, however culturally wide biases are far harder to detect. Posts modernists also argue that different historians take different interpretations from texts and evidence. This factor, post-modernists, argue means that one of the historians must be incorrect. As it is often impossible to establish which one is incorrect, the very attempt to establish the truth is impossible.

Post-modernism places some historical methodology into a light which reveals inherent flaws. For example Jacques Derrida took issue with some historians supposed complacency and naïve empiricism, while others subjected historians to literary criticism. This certainly encourages historians to be wary of such attitudes and to less trusting of sources. The term post-modernism is an umbrella label which encompasses, post structuralism, the linguistic turn and post-Marxism. The advantages, of post-Marxism for example, can be easily seen. Post-Marxism encompasses reversionary responses to Marxism, which include the feminist approach to Marxist historiography. The resulting attempt to amend the flaws of Marxist historiography in that respect certainly can be argued to have had a beneficial impact upon the Marxist paradigms used to understand the past.

Of course, one can point out the flaws of post-modernism until the sun goes down (which insidentally I did; this material is cut from an essay I wrote which rubbished post-modernism and it took all day and night to write); but it is worth noting that to an extent what they claim is absolutely true (rather paradoxically as post-modernistism rejects the notion of truth - at least in the context of history).

[razboz]

BCBM: i dont think we can resolve our differnet point of views without making a case by case analysis of every event in recorded history which cocould take a while. Botht our argumants have holes in them due to the nature of history.

I have made th argument that history is of limited value. But allow me to contrast that by saying that perhaps it is of some value, in the same way a work of fiction cna be of value to us. These accounts on which all history is based (all good history anyway) are often intertwinne with lies deceit and just plain fantasy. Thus the value of these is virtually null, at least if we wish to analyse history as a series of real events.

However these accounts can give us powerfull indicators of the times in which they were written, because they reflect the will of the author who is inexorably defined by his time. Thus we can draw some conclusions about the past. Black rose put it well when he said that the histories of the past reflect (predominantly) the will of those in charge. This is already an analysis fo the social order which existed at the time of the writing.

[bcbm]

I will reply later.

[Cryotank Screams]

I personally find history fascinating, and ultimately to be the birth place of new ideas, and a invaluable resource of analysis and study.