ShushKebab
New Member
Well; we've basically been set with a piece of hw; to examine a particular source from Macintyre, from his book: The Historians Conscience. From what I've researched about him; he's primarily a Marxist Historians. I haven't read History Wars; but for someone who has, can they give me a quick overview of what his purposes are? He's basically against Conservatives such as Keith Windschuttle, but doesn't necessarily side with Henry Reynolds and Lyndall Ryans.
Heres the source, where we have to use 2-3 Historians to reference to:
Introduction
What are obligations of the historians? Some would say that the historian is charged with providing knowledge of the past, a knowledge that contributes to an understanding of present circumstances and future possibilities. From this idea of history as a social science comes an expectation of objectivity. The historian is obliged to consider all of the available evidence, subject to rigorous examination and report the findings dispassionately
Others take a more emotional view of the past, especially when that past marks out a lineage of achievements and sacrifices that define identities and commands loyalties. Such is especially the case with national history since it is from formative events in the past that nations erects its monuments, conducts its ceremonies and draw its ideals. From this idea of history as heritage comes as expectation of custodial responsibility. The historian is obliged to honour the past, to preserve it and keep it alive in the popular memory, to maintain the legacy.
These expectations set up divergent obligations. The one reworks the past to serve the interests of the present, the other attaches the present to a binding past. Historians feel the force of both expectations and respond to both: they have a commitment to investigation of the past, and with that a corresponding duty to conduct their research honestly, while they also are drawn to the past with a deep emotional engagement...
The public dispute over Australian history has been conducted for the most part in terms of truth and falsehood. While the motives and integrity of participants are part of that debate, there is surprisingly little attention to the ethical dimensions of historical scholarship. If it is a fundamental duty of the historian to tell the truth, then that scarcely exhausts the obligations that arise when we work with the past. The choice of subject, the engagement with the sources, respect for the evidence, fair dealing with the work of others, attention to context, humility in the exercise of judgement and recognition of what cannot be known - these are just some of the responsibilities a researcher incurs. The mediation between past and present is a profoundly moral activity. Of all the faculties of the historian, a good conscience is indispensable. Technical virtuosity will disguise many flaws, but not bad faith.
An appreciation of these responsibilities is part of the training of the historian. The initial challenge, when we teach, is to explain that history is something more than a fixed body of knowledge, that it is a process of inquiry. We introduce the student to the forms of historical evidence and the procedures that are used to test them. We nurture the skills of historical judgement and interpretation. We encourage the student to see how alternative accounts of the past are produce and how they can be assessed. We foster the capacity for independent judgment, originality and imaginaton that are the hallmarks of good historical scholarship.
Stuart Macintyre, 'Introduction', The Historian's Conscience, 2004 pp. 1 - 2, 4 -5
Heres the source, where we have to use 2-3 Historians to reference to:
Introduction
What are obligations of the historians? Some would say that the historian is charged with providing knowledge of the past, a knowledge that contributes to an understanding of present circumstances and future possibilities. From this idea of history as a social science comes an expectation of objectivity. The historian is obliged to consider all of the available evidence, subject to rigorous examination and report the findings dispassionately
Others take a more emotional view of the past, especially when that past marks out a lineage of achievements and sacrifices that define identities and commands loyalties. Such is especially the case with national history since it is from formative events in the past that nations erects its monuments, conducts its ceremonies and draw its ideals. From this idea of history as heritage comes as expectation of custodial responsibility. The historian is obliged to honour the past, to preserve it and keep it alive in the popular memory, to maintain the legacy.
These expectations set up divergent obligations. The one reworks the past to serve the interests of the present, the other attaches the present to a binding past. Historians feel the force of both expectations and respond to both: they have a commitment to investigation of the past, and with that a corresponding duty to conduct their research honestly, while they also are drawn to the past with a deep emotional engagement...
The public dispute over Australian history has been conducted for the most part in terms of truth and falsehood. While the motives and integrity of participants are part of that debate, there is surprisingly little attention to the ethical dimensions of historical scholarship. If it is a fundamental duty of the historian to tell the truth, then that scarcely exhausts the obligations that arise when we work with the past. The choice of subject, the engagement with the sources, respect for the evidence, fair dealing with the work of others, attention to context, humility in the exercise of judgement and recognition of what cannot be known - these are just some of the responsibilities a researcher incurs. The mediation between past and present is a profoundly moral activity. Of all the faculties of the historian, a good conscience is indispensable. Technical virtuosity will disguise many flaws, but not bad faith.
An appreciation of these responsibilities is part of the training of the historian. The initial challenge, when we teach, is to explain that history is something more than a fixed body of knowledge, that it is a process of inquiry. We introduce the student to the forms of historical evidence and the procedures that are used to test them. We nurture the skills of historical judgement and interpretation. We encourage the student to see how alternative accounts of the past are produce and how they can be assessed. We foster the capacity for independent judgment, originality and imaginaton that are the hallmarks of good historical scholarship.
Stuart Macintyre, 'Introduction', The Historian's Conscience, 2004 pp. 1 - 2, 4 -5