Historiography 2

Historiography 2-Blog 2

Mark Bevir stated, “We can say that the working out of objectivity is itself a profoundly historical process.”

This is very true given the readings and what has been stated in class. From the in class time from last week there seemed to come about two ways of looking at history. One through Historical Materialism the other through Historical Culture. From looking at this it would seem that the most egocentric way of looking at history is through Historical Materialism. Through culturism the historian interprets the culture within its own world. It does not try to compare and contrast itself to another culture. In materialism, there is always going to be a comparison against the most technologically advanced country. But, what is that technology is negative. This is what makes both sides objective. Because a historian cannot put himself or herself into the past it is physically impossible. Also the historian cannot investigate a country, which had a lower living standard than the richest country in the world at the time.

One of the ways that I appreciated Bevir’s comments was through his idea that, “Of course, as interpretations reveal the particular character of a fact, they often partially define the way we regard the fact.” This is very true in that what the historian states in his work will shape the reader’s perception of that event until he or she reads another work about that subject and it may change.

I am reminded through this of how this could work in a primary source work where the historian is the self telling the story. After the Battle of Gettysburg, there were many interpretations of who shot the first shot there. But, the one that was written was from the Confederate side that said the Seventh Tennessee Regiment of Archer’s Brigade shot down one of Beaufort’s cavalry. Because this was the only thing written about that particular part of the battle it was accepted. But, many years later many more accounts were written and it was officially decided that is was actually one of Beaufort’s cavalry. Because of the Tennesseans bias toward making their contribution to the battle bigger they changed their interpretation and thereby changing history.

Through the contributions of historiography, it has now become a wide field that can be argued over and interpreted time and time again.

Till next week,

matteavs