I have never thought of history in a way that did not involve the connections that exists between all of the various fields of study. I have always felt that everything that falls into the scope of human interaction, as well as everything that has had some form of interaction on humanity, i.e. weather, plant and animal life, and landform changes, needs to be studied and understood in a historical manner. Manning does an excellent job in describing these interactions and the need to connect history to other disciplines. When it comes to being able to study history, I think we can all agree that a historical record of facts and figures, names and places, and who died when is not easy to study. A historical record that connects population movement and growth to the ecological record of an area , while it includes the who, what, when and where is much more beneficial because it helps answer the all important why.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Israel's Impact on the Post-WWII World
There was no greater period of change in the face of the world in such a short period of time as was found in the years immediately following the end of the Second World War. New nations were formed, borders redrawn, and new governments established around the world. The most impactful of all of these changes was the creation of a Jewish nation in the Middle East. When the European powers decided to create the country of Israel they set in motion a series of events that still affect the world in every way possible. All aspects of global society, from economics and politics to culture and religion, are affected by Israel. Events in this tiny nation create massive ripples felt in every corner of the world. There is seldom a day when there is not at least one news story in every major world newspaper related to the Israeli people in one way or another. Jewish conflict with the neighboring Muslim countries has set the tone for international diplomacy for almost 100 years. Which side of the dispute a nation sides with at any given time extends beyond the Middle East to the world at large.
There are countries around the world such as Venezuela with its population around 29 million. That even though nations may not like the leader’s foreign policy or stand on nuclear weapons draw very little notice. Yet the same cannot be said for Israel with its almost 8 million people. In our modern world it can be said that if the leader of Israel gets a cold, the world as a whole sneezes. In a May 12th search of the AP website (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/WORLD?SITE=AP) for stories relating to Israel, 71 news stories were listed for the month of May alone, 89 stories in the 15 days kept on record. During that same time period only 32 stories were reported for our example country of Venezuela. What other country, founded in the last 75 years, has had such impact the world over?
There are countries around the world such as Venezuela with its population around 29 million. That even though nations may not like the leader’s foreign policy or stand on nuclear weapons draw very little notice. Yet the same cannot be said for Israel with its almost 8 million people. In our modern world it can be said that if the leader of Israel gets a cold, the world as a whole sneezes. In a May 12th search of the AP website (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/WORLD?SITE=AP) for stories relating to Israel, 71 news stories were listed for the month of May alone, 89 stories in the 15 days kept on record. During that same time period only 32 stories were reported for our example country of Venezuela. What other country, founded in the last 75 years, has had such impact the world over?
Monday, April 29, 2013
I feel that without the Protestant Reformation there could have never been the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution. Until people were freed from the control of the church and allowed to explore new areas and ideas there could never be any major advance in society. The proof of this lies in the history of Europe leading up to the time of intellectual growth in comparison to the history of the Near and Far East during the same time period. In this way the Reformation freed the Western world and allowed science and thought to advance in ways that had hither to been stifled.
Now to my true answer: the Scientific Revolution made the world both small and much larger at the same time on many different scales. Many people will, and have, discussed the advances in sailing and the beginning of the Age of Exploration or Exploitation depending on which side of the landing party you stood. But the Scientific Revolution also made the world a much bigger place on a small scale. I know that sounds like a contradictory term but hear me out. With advances in agriculture and industry there came a growth of awareness among the lower and middle classes in the Western world. Always before the great lords were the only ones who had dealings with “foreign” peoples. Very few members of the lower classes ever thought of those who lived more than a day’s ride from their home as being of any import.
Now suddenly the small free-holder farmer has new technology available helping him produce more and better foods, resulting in a surplus. He now faces the question of what to do with this surplus. He hears of a weaver in the next village over who makes excellent cloth and is willing to trade cloth for food. Our poor farmer would like to wear better clothing than those he currently has so he makes a voyage out into the unknown world beyond his small village and is soon trading surplus food for finer cloth. He returns home and is considered a wealthy man because he was able to get such good materials. The next year his neighbors use the new technologies and they too have a surplus, but only our farmer knows the weaver, so he takes a small commission from everyone and sets out to trade food for cloth, getting richer along the way when he realizes he can trade for things beyond cloth. In a few years he is no longer a farmer; he is now a grocer.
In a very similar manner the weaver gets richer as well because he can trade a surplus of food for better wool or whatever else his need may be. Both of these men, and those they traded with, suddenly became part of a larger world. The Scientific Revolution expanded their small world in ways they could have never imagined.
Now to my true answer: the Scientific Revolution made the world both small and much larger at the same time on many different scales. Many people will, and have, discussed the advances in sailing and the beginning of the Age of Exploration or Exploitation depending on which side of the landing party you stood. But the Scientific Revolution also made the world a much bigger place on a small scale. I know that sounds like a contradictory term but hear me out. With advances in agriculture and industry there came a growth of awareness among the lower and middle classes in the Western world. Always before the great lords were the only ones who had dealings with “foreign” peoples. Very few members of the lower classes ever thought of those who lived more than a day’s ride from their home as being of any import.
Now suddenly the small free-holder farmer has new technology available helping him produce more and better foods, resulting in a surplus. He now faces the question of what to do with this surplus. He hears of a weaver in the next village over who makes excellent cloth and is willing to trade cloth for food. Our poor farmer would like to wear better clothing than those he currently has so he makes a voyage out into the unknown world beyond his small village and is soon trading surplus food for finer cloth. He returns home and is considered a wealthy man because he was able to get such good materials. The next year his neighbors use the new technologies and they too have a surplus, but only our farmer knows the weaver, so he takes a small commission from everyone and sets out to trade food for cloth, getting richer along the way when he realizes he can trade for things beyond cloth. In a few years he is no longer a farmer; he is now a grocer.
In a very similar manner the weaver gets richer as well because he can trade a surplus of food for better wool or whatever else his need may be. Both of these men, and those they traded with, suddenly became part of a larger world. The Scientific Revolution expanded their small world in ways they could have never imagined.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
God, Glory, and Gold:
Not Necessarily in that Order
History is a vast collection of cause and effect events that shape the world as they happen. Our study of history is nothing more than a study of these events in an attempt to understand what lead to the causes and how the effects shaped these events. We think if we are able to understand what causes the events happening around us we can predict future events. When we look hard enough for the true causes in history we will find, in most cases, that it is either God, Glory, or Gold that drives men to act. More often than not, it was Gold more than any of the other two that drove mankind.
Examples of these motives can be found in all the great empires of the world. The empires of Mesopotamia show this in their growth. The leaders who founded these great civilizations were driven by a need to establish themselves as the head of the dominant society. This was the driving force behind all of the great civilizations throughout history. All leaders from the smallest tribal leader to the mightiest emperor all worked to make their society the dominant one in their time. They strove to control as much territory as possible and as many people as they could, for as long as possible. They did all of this to ensure that their name would go down in history as the greatest leader possible.
It wasn’t just empire building that was done for Glory. Often great feats of engineering were undertaken in an effort to make sure later generations did not forget. The great pyramids of Egypt are the best example. The pharaohs who had them built were working to ensure that they were not forgotten by history. When we look back on Egyptian history we often think of the great names such as Ramses, Tut, or Amenhotep. The reason we remember these leaders is not so much for what they did as leaders, but what they left behind: their tombs. It is true that from study we know that Amenhotep IV did make history on his own by attempting a religious revolution, but there again you find God, or in this case gods, as the motivating factor in his actions.
As time passed and more religions were being developed and strengthened beyond simple pagan tribalism. Out of the wide and varied litany of world religions Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and even Confucianism had risen to the top by the middle of the 4th century. They had begun to play a larger and larger role in the world around them. In Europe, Islam and Christianity battled for supremacy for centuries before Christianity finally won out. Church and government leaders for each side worked to make sure their religion was the dominant one for their time. While there were cases of tolerance, these cases were often, in the scope of history, rather brief.
The same pattern played out all over the world: one religion striving to overcome another until ultimately there would only be one left. We often see these conflicts as political or territorial, but the true motive behind them was often religion. The Crusades in Europe are a great example of the opposite of this being true. Religion was the cover for wars fought for political gain. In a time when the powers of Europe were struggling to establish themselves as independent and in some cases dominant of each other, the favor of the church played a major role. In efforts to gain this favor, the leaders of different European countries undertook military actions designed to gain the favor of the church and strengthen their own positions both at home and abroad. The later Crusades were driven more by the last of our great causes: gold and riches.
The desire for gold has motivated much of what man has done throughout history. Often this motivation is covered up with some other reason, which at the time looks very presentable as was the case in the later Crusades. No leader in history has ever taken power, defeating those around them, simply because they could. They did it for the gold. Those who strive to rise to power, even in our modern time, may say they are concerned for the common good of all, but in truth greed and a need for wealth is the underlying motivator. If this were not the case elected officials would not be given lavish salaries and extravagant benefits for doing what they declare their public duty for the good of all those they lead.
So while we often see Glory, God, or Gold as the cause of what has happened in history, when we look deeper into the events we are studying we find the truth is nothing more than greed. Gold, more than any other factor, has been a driving force behind what has taken place. This sad truth is not something we like to hear, but is something of which we should all be aware of when looking at the world around us. There are many good examples of missionary organizations that are working to better the world around them; however, when someone comes along saying they want to do something to help the people, look at their true motives. In many cases it is their own prosperity they have in mind.
Not Necessarily in that Order
History is a vast collection of cause and effect events that shape the world as they happen. Our study of history is nothing more than a study of these events in an attempt to understand what lead to the causes and how the effects shaped these events. We think if we are able to understand what causes the events happening around us we can predict future events. When we look hard enough for the true causes in history we will find, in most cases, that it is either God, Glory, or Gold that drives men to act. More often than not, it was Gold more than any of the other two that drove mankind.
Examples of these motives can be found in all the great empires of the world. The empires of Mesopotamia show this in their growth. The leaders who founded these great civilizations were driven by a need to establish themselves as the head of the dominant society. This was the driving force behind all of the great civilizations throughout history. All leaders from the smallest tribal leader to the mightiest emperor all worked to make their society the dominant one in their time. They strove to control as much territory as possible and as many people as they could, for as long as possible. They did all of this to ensure that their name would go down in history as the greatest leader possible.
It wasn’t just empire building that was done for Glory. Often great feats of engineering were undertaken in an effort to make sure later generations did not forget. The great pyramids of Egypt are the best example. The pharaohs who had them built were working to ensure that they were not forgotten by history. When we look back on Egyptian history we often think of the great names such as Ramses, Tut, or Amenhotep. The reason we remember these leaders is not so much for what they did as leaders, but what they left behind: their tombs. It is true that from study we know that Amenhotep IV did make history on his own by attempting a religious revolution, but there again you find God, or in this case gods, as the motivating factor in his actions.
As time passed and more religions were being developed and strengthened beyond simple pagan tribalism. Out of the wide and varied litany of world religions Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and even Confucianism had risen to the top by the middle of the 4th century. They had begun to play a larger and larger role in the world around them. In Europe, Islam and Christianity battled for supremacy for centuries before Christianity finally won out. Church and government leaders for each side worked to make sure their religion was the dominant one for their time. While there were cases of tolerance, these cases were often, in the scope of history, rather brief.
The same pattern played out all over the world: one religion striving to overcome another until ultimately there would only be one left. We often see these conflicts as political or territorial, but the true motive behind them was often religion. The Crusades in Europe are a great example of the opposite of this being true. Religion was the cover for wars fought for political gain. In a time when the powers of Europe were struggling to establish themselves as independent and in some cases dominant of each other, the favor of the church played a major role. In efforts to gain this favor, the leaders of different European countries undertook military actions designed to gain the favor of the church and strengthen their own positions both at home and abroad. The later Crusades were driven more by the last of our great causes: gold and riches.
The desire for gold has motivated much of what man has done throughout history. Often this motivation is covered up with some other reason, which at the time looks very presentable as was the case in the later Crusades. No leader in history has ever taken power, defeating those around them, simply because they could. They did it for the gold. Those who strive to rise to power, even in our modern time, may say they are concerned for the common good of all, but in truth greed and a need for wealth is the underlying motivator. If this were not the case elected officials would not be given lavish salaries and extravagant benefits for doing what they declare their public duty for the good of all those they lead.
So while we often see Glory, God, or Gold as the cause of what has happened in history, when we look deeper into the events we are studying we find the truth is nothing more than greed. Gold, more than any other factor, has been a driving force behind what has taken place. This sad truth is not something we like to hear, but is something of which we should all be aware of when looking at the world around us. There are many good examples of missionary organizations that are working to better the world around them; however, when someone comes along saying they want to do something to help the people, look at their true motives. In many cases it is their own prosperity they have in mind.
Monday, April 15, 2013
I think we are doing a serious wrong when we say that societies turn to civilizations when they settle in one place and lose the sense of commonality with those around them, banding together with their own beliefs, customs, and in some cases languages. We feel this change occurs when people agree to live together in accordance with an understood and often written set of guidelines to govern their behavior and develop a surplus in staple goods so they can work to develop new technologies and new ideologies as well as establishing a means of defense to protect their luxuries the surplus allows.
With these as the guidelines most commonly accepted for what a society needs to be considered a civilization, we tend to ignore any groups that we, in essence, do not like because they fail to fit our cookie cutter world. Would any of us declare that the Hebrew people were not civilized? They lived in accordance with a written set of guidelines that governed behavior, working to develop surpluses in staple goods to allow for the development of specialists in many different areas of society. They stood apart from those around them in beliefs, dress, and governance and their leaders established plans for defense to protect their society. Yet for all of this we do not study the great Hebrew civilization of the Middle East simply because they did not, at any time in the history of this region, rule over vast territories and the people within them. Instead they lived in the same basic area from ancient times predating the great Mesopotamian Civilizations through our modern world.
We also discount the Hunter-Gatherer societies of ancient times. While they did not live in one fixed location, instead often travelling over a vast range that may or may not have overlaped with other groups, they did have distinct customs and beliefs often setting them apart from other groups. They worked for a common good making sure everyone and everything within their society was protected from outsiders. They also worked to build a surplus allowing for a small amount of specialization and a sense of security against future times. Again we do not call them civilizations mainly because they did not live in one fixed location.
With these as the guidelines most commonly accepted for what a society needs to be considered a civilization, we tend to ignore any groups that we, in essence, do not like because they fail to fit our cookie cutter world. Would any of us declare that the Hebrew people were not civilized? They lived in accordance with a written set of guidelines that governed behavior, working to develop surpluses in staple goods to allow for the development of specialists in many different areas of society. They stood apart from those around them in beliefs, dress, and governance and their leaders established plans for defense to protect their society. Yet for all of this we do not study the great Hebrew civilization of the Middle East simply because they did not, at any time in the history of this region, rule over vast territories and the people within them. Instead they lived in the same basic area from ancient times predating the great Mesopotamian Civilizations through our modern world.
We also discount the Hunter-Gatherer societies of ancient times. While they did not live in one fixed location, instead often travelling over a vast range that may or may not have overlaped with other groups, they did have distinct customs and beliefs often setting them apart from other groups. They worked for a common good making sure everyone and everything within their society was protected from outsiders. They also worked to build a surplus allowing for a small amount of specialization and a sense of security against future times. Again we do not call them civilizations mainly because they did not live in one fixed location.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The argument that all history needs to be evaluated for authorial bias is quite valid. This bias leads us to ensure that certain facts are included in our account of events and that others are omitted. All writing, not just historical, is affected by the beliefs and opinions of the author. While we may critically evaluate the sources we use, we will still select sources that support and defend our pre-conceived ideas surrounding the events we study. By not taking the time to look at and understand these prejudices in our own thinking, we will not be able to evaluate the prejudices of the authors we study.
I think that the “Marwick 20% Rule” is a misrepresentation of the truth. The idea that 20 % of all written history is influenced by personal bias and outside pressure from society, politics, etc. is an understatement of the truth. I feel that 100% of recorded history is influenced by social and personal prejudice. No matter how much we strive for an unbiased accounting of events, everything we do, not just our writing, is influenced by personal opinion. Even works such as dictionaries of history, simple accountings of names, dates, etc. are guided by personal opinions of the authors. They chose what events get in and which ones are not worth mentioning. All dictionaries of the history of England will tell you that William the Conqueror landed in 1066. Very few will tell you that he set sail numerous times before making the successful crossing of the channel and that he did not land where he had hoped. Through critical examination of our sources to evaluate the competence of the authors we can learn what is influencing the authors and shaping what we read allowing us to fill in the gaps in the written accounts of the past.
Much of what is written about historical events focuses on who, what, when, and where of the past. By moving beyond this format into the how and why we can get a broader picture of events and an understanding of how they fit into the bigger picture. In truth it is the narrative histories that we enjoy and read most often. While historians fall back on diplomatic and social sources for hard facts, the story-telling narratives give us the how and why to support the recorded facts. To get the understanding we need requires two things; first, a study of motives among those whose works we study, and second, a look into our own motives for studying history. Until we fill in the blanks we can only ________________ history.
I think that the “Marwick 20% Rule” is a misrepresentation of the truth. The idea that 20 % of all written history is influenced by personal bias and outside pressure from society, politics, etc. is an understatement of the truth. I feel that 100% of recorded history is influenced by social and personal prejudice. No matter how much we strive for an unbiased accounting of events, everything we do, not just our writing, is influenced by personal opinion. Even works such as dictionaries of history, simple accountings of names, dates, etc. are guided by personal opinions of the authors. They chose what events get in and which ones are not worth mentioning. All dictionaries of the history of England will tell you that William the Conqueror landed in 1066. Very few will tell you that he set sail numerous times before making the successful crossing of the channel and that he did not land where he had hoped. Through critical examination of our sources to evaluate the competence of the authors we can learn what is influencing the authors and shaping what we read allowing us to fill in the gaps in the written accounts of the past.
Much of what is written about historical events focuses on who, what, when, and where of the past. By moving beyond this format into the how and why we can get a broader picture of events and an understanding of how they fit into the bigger picture. In truth it is the narrative histories that we enjoy and read most often. While historians fall back on diplomatic and social sources for hard facts, the story-telling narratives give us the how and why to support the recorded facts. To get the understanding we need requires two things; first, a study of motives among those whose works we study, and second, a look into our own motives for studying history. Until we fill in the blanks we can only ________________ history.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Tripartite Sources
Understanding the tripartite nature of written sources, the classifications of narrative, diplomatic, and social, and what these classifications entail is key in evaluating sources for their relevance in a given field of research. To understand that narrative sources are aimed at presenting the specific ideas, opinions, and facts chosen by the author to further their own goals helps researchers realize that narratives cannot be used to establish facts. Narratives are useful in understanding the society and culture in which they are written.
Knowing that diplomatic sources give evidence of, or create new legal situations helps researchers understand how governments worked. By knowing the particular styles and formats used by different governing bodies, historians can follow changes in these governments. Diplomatic sources are often very formal by nature with a great deal of attention given to the different parts of the document. For many years diplomatic sources were seen as the only pure source for historical research. While diplomatic sources offer greatly detailed accounts of how governments work, they lack the social aspects needed to fully understand why things happened.
The final leg of the tripartite, social sources, is based on records keeping. While at times social sources are less formal than narratives or diplomatic documents, they can still be very useful in learning about societies and cultures of the past; however, if studied as the only source in learning about the past, social documents can be very limited in their information.
To fully research a topic you need to find the blend of all three: narrative, diplomatic, and social sources. You have to have an accounting of how the government worked, who lived where and where they worked, and what they thought about the world around them. This knowledge can only be gained by blending all three types of sources, something that can only be done if the researcher understands the nature of these sources and how they relate.
Knowing that diplomatic sources give evidence of, or create new legal situations helps researchers understand how governments worked. By knowing the particular styles and formats used by different governing bodies, historians can follow changes in these governments. Diplomatic sources are often very formal by nature with a great deal of attention given to the different parts of the document. For many years diplomatic sources were seen as the only pure source for historical research. While diplomatic sources offer greatly detailed accounts of how governments work, they lack the social aspects needed to fully understand why things happened.
The final leg of the tripartite, social sources, is based on records keeping. While at times social sources are less formal than narratives or diplomatic documents, they can still be very useful in learning about societies and cultures of the past; however, if studied as the only source in learning about the past, social documents can be very limited in their information.
To fully research a topic you need to find the blend of all three: narrative, diplomatic, and social sources. You have to have an accounting of how the government worked, who lived where and where they worked, and what they thought about the world around them. This knowledge can only be gained by blending all three types of sources, something that can only be done if the researcher understands the nature of these sources and how they relate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
