Hi folks, here's an article on Historiography, and the different aspects of what is historical fact, based on who does the writing. In America today, we're having great trouble even finding journalistic news sources that deliver an accurate description of present day events; For those who watch TV interviews, Kevin Spacey has been in New York City, doing all of the talk shows for his Superman movie, as Lex Luther, after having spent three years in London, mostly performing “The Iceman Cometh”. And he has openly talked of how bizarre it is to watch American news now, and seeing no questions, or debate in the press, on the Iraq War. Following is a lengthy cut and paste from Wikipedia, followed with a list of different schools of history. When I throw in my opinion, I'll mark it with ***

Historiography

Defining historiography

Conal Furay and Michael J. Salevouris define "historiography" as "the study of the way history has been and is written--the history of historical writing... When you study 'historiography' you do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians."

The study of historiography demands a critical approach that goes beyond the mere examination of historical fact. Historiographical studies consider the source, often by researching the author, his or her position in society, and the type of history being written at the time.

Basic issues studied in historiography

Some of the common questions of historiography are:

Who wrote the source (primary or secondary)?

For primary sources, we look at the person in his or her society, for secondary sources, we consider the theoretical orientation of the approach for example, Marxist or Annales School, ("total history"), political history, etc.

What is the authenticity, authority, bias/interest, and intelligibility of the source?

What was the view of history when the source was written?

Was history supposed to provide moral lessons?

What or who was the intended audience?

What sources were privileged or ignored in the narrative?

By what method was the evidence compiled?

In what historical context was the work of history itself written?

Styles of Writing

Great Man

The Great man theory is a theory held by some that aims to explain history by the impact of "Great men", or heroes: highly influential individuals, either from personal charisma, genius intellects, or great political impact.

For example, a scholarly follower of the Great Man theory would be likely to study the Second World War by focusing on the big personalities of the conflict — Sir Winston Churchill, Hirohito, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Stalin, etc. — and view all of the historical events as being tied directly to their own individual decisions and orders.

A staunch opponent of the great man theory in its own time was Leo Tolstoy, who devoted the entire (non-fictional) beginning of the third volume of War and Peace to debunking it, using Napoleonic wars as an example.

Today the great man theory is out of favor as a singular explanation for why things happened. Historians also look at other factors such as economic, societal, environmental, and technological which are just as or more significant to historical change. History which only follows around "great men", especially when "greatness" is determined primarily by political status, is a shallow view of the past, and additionally one which excludes entire groups of people from being part of "history", including labor forces, ethnic minorities and cultural minorities.

*** This the history taught to most grade schoolers, before the age of 9. Small children, it was thought, couldn't cope with big concepts like dealing with a topic like Thanksgiving Day, and the plague and pestilence the Pilgrims brought to the natives. So instead the story focuses on a few major characters, but leaves out any explanation of the broader view.

History from Below

History from below is a level of historical narrative which was developed as a result of the Annales School and popularized in the 1960s. This form of social history focuses on the perspectives of ordinary individuals within society as well as individuals and regions that were not previously considered historically important. This includes women and the working class, as well as regions such as India or Africa.

The historian Jim Sharpe, in Peter Burke's book New Perspectives on Historical Writing, warns though that without contextualizing history from below can become a casual definition of isolated cases void of any real significance. Sharpe argues that this form of historical scholarship needs to be concretely linked to its place in history (e.g. its antecedents, consequences, etc). In a manner similar to what anthropologists call "thick description".

*** This is also dangerous territory for history, for the reasons stated in the article. These lead to the African Women's History Dept, sub chair on Lesbian studies who indicts the White Man for everything from African Slavery, to Apartheid, to the copier machine being out of toner. These folks have brought us the Crispus Atticks (sp?), a black man, was the first casualty of American Revolution and changed John Sutter to Johan, his German name.

Diplomatic History

Sometimes referred to as "Rankian History", diplomatic history focuses on politics, politicians and other high rulers and views them as being the driving force of continuity and change in history. It is the study of the conduct of international relations between states or across state boundaries.

This is the most common form of history and is often the classical and popular belief of what history should be.

Leopold von Ranke, a German, started this school of historical thought in the 1870s. It relies on the large number of official documents produced by modern western governments to create its history.

*** Here we're getting into 9^th grade World History, and US History. While the leaders are still a part of the history (great men), the context of their circumstances are examined.

History of Ideas

The history of ideas, a field of research in history and in related fields, deals with the expression, preservation, and change of human ideas over time. Scholars often consider the history of ideas a sister-discipline to, or a particular approach within, intellectual history. Work in the history of ideas usually involves close research in the history of philosophy and the history of literature. Recently some colleges and universities, such as Pitzer College and the University of Washington, have begun to offer undergraduate degrees in this field..

*** This includes the progression of ideas in discussion of events. Without Galileo's work on Astronomy and Physics, the works of Kepler, and Tycho Brahe wouldn't have been possible, not to say they themselves may not have made the discoveries. As Sir Isaac Newton said, dismissing his own greatness, “I'm merely standing on the shoulders of giants.” Or in England, without John Huss, an 11^th Century Roman Catholic Priest, putting forth the idea that the power of the State (King) does not derive from God, but flows from God, to all the people, and then their power flows to the State. Of course, his idea wasn't very popular with the Church (because by logic, then God's Power flows to the people, and then to the Church, robbing the Priests and Bishops of their power over the masses), or the King. So good old John Huss was defrocked, tortured until he recanted, and then was drawn and quartered. The pieces were then placed on pikes at the towns gates to serve as a reminder what ideas can bring. In the following Centuries, the Scottish uprisings begin, along with the democratizing of England. The Magna Carta only gave rights to the Dukes, and lesser vassals, but none to the serfs. John Huss did that.

Social History

Social history is an area of historical study considered by some to be a social science that attempts to view historical evidence from the point of view of developing social trends. In this view, it may include areas of economic history, legal history and the analysis of other aspects of civil society that show the evolution of social norms, behaviors and mores. It is distinguished from political history, military history and the so-called history of great men. Whereas Social history can be considered 'Grass- roots history' because it deals with the every-day people, the masses and how they shape History rather than the leaders. While proponents of history from below and the French annales school of historians have considered themselves part of social history, it is seen as a much broader movement among historians in the development of historiography. Unlike other approaches, it tries to see itself as a synthetic form of history not limited to the statement of so-called historical fact but willing to analyze historical data in a more systematic manner. A question in social history is whether the masses follow the leaders or whether it is the other way around.

An example of social history can be seen in the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Typical history would focus on the who, what, when and where; whereas social history focuses on the causes of the movement itself. Social historians would pose such questions as, "Why did the movement come about when it did?", and "What specific elements fostered the growth?" "What elements hindered the development?" This approach is favored by scholars because it allows for a full discussion on the sometimes less studied aspects. By understanding the past, we can begin to understand who we are now.

*** A broader reading of history, which fully develops the events. So while the White Man may not be at fault for the toner running out, he did in fact have a hand in African Slavery and Apartheid.

Meta history

Metahistory is a historiography book by Hayden White first published in 1974.

In Metahistory, White rejects the notion that historians or journalists are able to write about the past or present as it actually happens. Instead he defines archetypes of historians with specific characteristics who approach history with different types of narratives. The medium (the type of narrative) is the integral message of the history. White provides a system intended to de-mystify histories, historians, news reports, and journalists who claim to present things objectively. He also proposes some methods for determining in what ways a given account lacks complete objectivity and how it can be seen as ultimately ideological.

*** White's work is the scourge of President Reagan's hero worship groupies who see him as the Greatest President. They publish books on the Cold War, pointing out that from 1919 until January of 1981, not a single action was brought against the USSR. But once Ronnie flew in with his super human powers, then he single handedly defeated Gorby in a Grecco Roman Wrestling match for sole world superpower status, winner takes all. Of course these histories ignore all of the actions of every President, and British PM, and even the people of the USSR, and Poland, and Romania, in fact all the 10's of millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain, “yearning to breathe free.”

Revisionism

Revisionism is a word which has several meanings. One of its first (neutral) uses was the revision of Marx's doctrine by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky in the late 19th century. Historical revisionism is often viewed as a legitimate effort by historians to broaden the awareness of certain historical events by re-examining conventional wisdom. However, the term has also been used in a pejorative sense, indicating an attempt to rewrite history by downgrading or simply ignoring essential facts, as in for example Holocaust denial (see historical revisionism (negationism)). *** This is the type I'll deal with in my comments, not the first “neutral part.

Historiography is often political in nature. For example, the Dunning school of historiography, which was sympathetic to former slave owners and leaders of the Confederacy, contended that black people, particularly former slaves, should neither be permitted to vote nor bear arms. In the 1960s, historiography corrected the racism of the Dunning School viewpoint, and history that included the viewpoint of African Americans who had been disenfranchised by the Jim Crow political and economic system that grew up alongside the powerful Dunning School and its way of telling history from the viewpoint of former slave owners. Mid-twentieth century historians also focused on primary sources to reveal previously excluded roles of women, minorities, and labor from earlier histories of the United States. According to these historiographers, historians in the 1930s and 1940s had a bias toward wealthy and well-connected white males. Some historians from that point onward devoted themselves to what they saw as more accurate representations of the past, casting a light on those who had been previously disregarded as non-noteworthy.

This common usage has occurred because some authors who publish articles that deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence (such as David Irving, a proponent of Holocaust denial), have called themselves "historical revisionists"[3], and this label has been used by others as a pejorative to describe them when criticizing their work.

Another example of historical revisionism is as a result of political intent. In particular, one can examine the aggressive efforts of some governments to censor school textbooks and online sources. By intentionally omitting or censoring some information, such governments can pursue a nationalistic agenda. Even delays of public information can misconstrue the original events. Current examples would include:

The Chinese government for censoring criticism of how the CPC dealt with the civil protests such as Tiananmen Square Protests.

Japanese school textbooks tend to whitewash acts of aggression and atrocities by Japan during WWII Japanese war crimes.

*** These, the revisionists, the coupled with the hero worshiping journalist/ historian's are the real trolls of dishonesty. They include the Holocaust deniers, and the Antebellum (pre Civil War era) apologists. The Dunning School came along a generation after the Civil War and began to write how slavery was a”peculiar institution”, and presented it as actually beneficial to the slaves. The white slave owners were doing them a favor by getting them out of Africa, clothing them, feeding them, teaching them trades, etc. In other words, using the power of lying and time to cover the crimes of their ancestors.

*** All throughout history these revisionist trolls have been with us, telling people the “truth” that Jews are sub human rats, or that this tribe in Africa are roaches who must be killed. Or they are as simple as politicians trying to advance their own agenda, and using fake, revisionist history to support their cause; like saying that we need to invade Iraq now, or else Saddam be as unstoppable as Hitler and he'll get so big and strong, when Iraq in 2003 was nothing like Germany in 1938. The only similarity is that both nations were ruled by tyrants with bad haircuts and silly facial hair. Or now when these same forces are rewriting history in an attempt to undo Social Security by making false statements that it was only a temporary fix, when in fact all of the debates from the House, and Senate, and FDR's personal papers say the exact opposite.

*** And what does it say about a political movement that needs to resort to such propaganda to advance their agenda? If in order to make your case you need to tell so many lies that there is no truth behind your arguments, then it fails miserably; like Social Security reform did back in 2005. Or if the issue can be framed as one of “Fear the blank!” (like Iraqis, or Poles, or Jews, or Commies) the lies you tell need to be completely unprovable (at least until you've gotten what you want), such as “There are 235 Communists in the State Department!”, or “Freedonia is preparing to invade us!” or “Iraq is trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Africa!”or “Hezbollah has started a campaign of terror!” then whip up the fear level of the public to such a degree that the people demand war. This is the M.O. of all tyrants, from Dubya, to Stalin, and even Hitler sold the German public on the need to invade Poland in 1939, based on Polish aggression, and the UK and France pulling the Poles' strings.