History books

[longknife]

In researching for my Father Serra's Legacy series, I came across references to a series of books on the history of California written by Hubert Howe Bancroft. I also learned that a majority of tomes written for the California school systems used extensive material from his books. [They are available to read online or to download for FREE]

Having studied many other sources, I was surprised to find Bancroft's views of the Franciscan friars and Californians in general was quite harsh - even biased. I then checked out his bio to discover he was a typical white, protestant, Midwesterner with a limited advanced education who took a job as an editor in a 19th century San Francisco publication. He hired a number of people to go throughout California to gather up documents about its history. He then compiled these documents and used them to prepare and publish these series of books.

The friars, according to Bancroft, while devout men, treated the Indians like animals and treated them badly. That caught me off guard while he -- and others -- had described how, when a friar returned to the mission, the disciples would crowd around to kiss his hands. And, they were never kept in chains, able to leave whenever they felt like it.

You want to read more about him and his writing check out my blog.

 

[jasonnfree]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history? Is there even such a thing as good or bad history? Are all history books the same in historical facts? With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why? Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

A friend of mine, Jim Loewen, is the author of the "Lies My Teacher Told Me" series. A sociologist by trade, he began as a co-author of a Mississippi history text, and the ensuing decade in court made him the leading authority on how history textbooks in America are written and adopted.

In short, history textbooks used in public and private schools are not written by historians. They are written by "specialists" in "history education" whose paramount objective is to get the text adopted by state education boards such as the one in Texas. To expect any good history to be the result is a good example of magical thinking. Compounding the problem is that most secondary history teachers take very few actual history courses in college. They take education courses. As a result they often have little experience reading, writing, or debating history.

The only way to learn real history is to get your hands dirty and learn how to do it from the bottom up. By the time history makes it into a book, it's pretty well sanitized and packaged. The dross sounds just as good as the real stuff. Once you have a little exposure to original research, be it family history or local history, you begin to know what to look for.

The study of how history is written and what constitutes good history and bad history is called historiography. All history is written in a context of the author's world view, and that determines what gets into a book and what gets left out; how the book is organized and what conclusions will be drawn. A good historian is not one free of bias (such people do not exist), but a person sufficiently aware of his or her biases to compensate for them.

When I buy history books, I use a few guidelines to try to avoid dropping $40 on a stinker.

1. In reading reviews, read the bad ones first. Before accepting any review, check out the reviewer to see if you think they generally make sense to you.

2. There is no replacement for good writing. C.V. Wedgewood is the best of her generation, and I gladly read anything she wrote. Even if I disagree, she is a pleasure to read. Life is too short to waste time on bad writing, no matter how important the topic.

3. Don't park your critical thinking skills when you pick up a history book. Nobody appointed the author God and the fact they have published a book does not make them right. Personally I take notes and act like I am going to review the book or write my own book on a related topic and am considering what kind of source the author makes.

4. Do not feel obligated to finish any book. It took me fifteen years to learn that if it's a stinker for the first 100 pages, there is very little chance it will improve toward the end.

5. Decide what kind of history you are interested in and what you would write about. Your time is too limited and valuable to waste it on topics that are "important" but don't hold your interest.

6. Half the fun of history is discussing it. Find forums and people with like interests and mix it up. Just don't take it too seriously.

And best of luck to you!

Oldfart: What's your take on Charles Beard's "Economic Interpretation of the Constitution". I ask because I know you have a background in economics also. Thanks.

 

[natstew]

History is written by the winners, truth is irrelevant.

The History I learned in school in Florida and Texas is not the History my Grandchildren are being taught.
It's been "sanitized" to fit today's Liberal Socialist Ideology!!

 

[Unkotare]

History is written by the winners, truth is irrelevant.

The History I learned in school in Florida and Texas is not the History my Grandchildren are being taught.
It's been "sanitized" to fit today's Liberal Socialist Ideology!!

Ok, what are they being taught that directly contradicts what you were taught?

 

[oldfart]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history? Is there even such a thing as good or bad history? Are all history books the same in historical facts? With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why? Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

Can think of no academic subject more subjective and politicized than History.

Try economics.

 

[oldfart]

Oldfart: What's your take on Charles Beard's "Economic Interpretation of the Constitution". I ask because I know you have a background in economics also. Thanks.

I think Beard grew up in a period where history was the biography of great men. His reaction to it was to find some overarching principle to organize history around, other than great men. This was a valuable insight and produced an understanding that would not be realized without it.

But with all such organizing principles, Beard's economic determinism became overextended. His success made his work a fad. And like all fads, it created a reaction that ultimately relegated Beard to a more balanced place in historiography. Think of Beard as intellectually Marx Junior.

The weakness of economic determinism in history is that it presupposes rational behavior and the primacy of economic motives (or at least constraints). It is very hard to explain modern wars or sectarian strife on economic grounds. Economics plays a part, but usually a secondary part. And of course Beard is useful in explaining the needs of a commercial society and how that effects law and property rights; but is less useful in explaining the history of art, literature, social movements, and popular culture.

The weakness of all single-factor explanations of history is that to explain everything, the theory has to be contorted beyond recognition. When you see this, alarm bells should go off in your brain. Human behavior is simply too nuanced and complex to be dealt with in one dimension.

I also would like to take a potshot at my favorite peeve about how American history is presented in textbooks. It really is a horrendous amalgam of disparate elements. It seems that authors, for a variety of different reasons, pick a "theme" for each historical period and treat that period as mainly about that theme. So for 1774--1800, we get a constitutional history (the military history of the Revolution having fallen out of favor), for 1800--1860 we get an economic history centered on slavery, for 1861--1890 we get a history of the frontier, 1890--1914 is a history of social movements of the Progressive Era, 1920--1939 another economic history, and so on. To supplement this witch's brew we season it with women's history, black history, immigrant history, history of inventions, First Nations history and so on. There is no continuity to this and it's not surprising students fail to make sense of much of it. It's the mini-Beard approach to history; find a theme for each period.

Add to this the fact that the most important developments affecting the lives of most people are usually left out. Most histories give us little idea of what people in a given time and place did for a living, ate, lived in, wore as clothes, did for recreation, or even regarded as legal.

When did farmers cease to be a majority of workers in America? When did canned food become common in the American West and what was it? How much privacy was expected in a frontier cabin? When did breeches and three corner hats cease to be in style for gentlemen? What was vaudeville, when did it flourish, and who watched it? When did any drug become illegal?

I would wager the average American would do no better than random guessing on this questionnaire, and I fear most college history majors would do little better. And if we have trouble with these basics, how well will we do in explaining the resurgence of the Klan in the 1920s? Or understanding our current deadly epidemic of obesity?

Life is holistic. Should history be any less so?

 

[elektra]

History will always be written by the winner. That means we all have only ever learned 50% of history.

But that's how history will continue to be forever written.

Only written by the winner? What about the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? According to the communist and revisionist, history is written by the winner.

 

[bripat9643]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history? Is there even such a thing as good or bad history? Are all history books the same in historical facts? With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why? Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

There is accurate history and there is popular history, which is what you are referring to. The later is almost always bullshit.

History books are mostly a collection of propaganda by the reigning political gang. The Republicans defeated the Confederacy, so the history of the war as taught in the public schools is nothing but a collection of Republican propaganda from the period. History told about the current era will be a collection of liberal propaganda because they are the dominant political gang at the moment.

 

[elektra]

We see so many histories mentioned on these boards, and many cited to support their political claims that I wonder if all history is the same? Can we differentiate between "good and bad" history? Is there even such a thing as good or bad history? Are all history books the same in historical facts? With all the events going on in the world, just today, how many events will even make it to the books, and if so why? Why are some events recorded in history texts and others not. Do historians have a criteria for material they put in their books?

There is accurate history and there is popular history, which is what you are referring to. The later is almost always bullshit.

History books are mostly a collection of propaganda by the reigning political gang. The Republicans defeated the Confederacy, so the history of the war as taught in the public schools is nothing but a collection of Republican propaganda from the period. History told about the current era will be a collection of liberal propaganda because they are the dominant political gang at the moment.

Your statement on who writes history is pure bull. There is really no debate other than to say your ignorant or a liar for political reasons.