Alright folks...here's the story. I'm gonna attempt to give you the nuts and bolts of being a historian in a nutshell. There's been this weird perception among historians that the public at large doesn't care about history. Lately, that charge has been coming under fire and we're (historians, that is) starting to realize that perhaps you do, and that we just suck at communicating with you. I know, I know, some of you still don't, and that's okay, because I probably don't care too much about your passion either. And it's cool. We don't all have to love everyone and love everything about everyone. That's unrealistic, and kind of weird. Anyway - that's where I come in! Public Historian to save the day! I wish I had a super cool super-hero name, but alas, it's just me. For everyone asking themselves, gee Em, what's a public historian? I'll tell ya. A public historian is first and foremost a historian. So I'm "trained" in the study and practice of history. (I put "trained" in quotations because I haven't graduated quite yet). The "study" of history should make sense; we all learned it in elementary school, middle school, and high school. "Practice" gets a little more complicated. Public historians "practice" history by researching it and producing what is called "gray" literature (things like captions for museum exhibits, resources for teachers, and anything else that sees more than the brick walls of the ivory tower, or the academy). By contrast, academic historians "practice" history by teaching it, researching it, and publishing it in the form of a book or article - usually for other historians to read. The only real difference between an academic historian and a public historian lies in audience. Simple, right? Therefore, my job as a "trained" public historian is get you to think about, and perhaps even enjoy thinking about, history.
This is the part where I have to address the age old question: Why should we care about history? There is no right answer to the question, and every historian will come up with a different answer, of that I can assure you. But before I give you my answer, I first need to explain what it is that "trained" historians actually study. Contrary to popular belief, historians don't just memorize names and dates of treaty signings and European wars that accomplished nothing and that no one really cares about it. That would get boring. Instead, historians explore broader social, economic, political, and other causes of particular events that can be considered "watershed" moments. Or, on the flip side, historians speculate as to why certain events were not "watershed" moments and why things remained as they were in a particular time period. (A watershed moment is an event or time period that lead to massive change - for example, World War I was a watershed moment for United States immigration policy. In the post-war era, the United States passed federal legislation that massively restricted immigration into the United States). I hope that makes sense. Of course, there is some memorization of names and dates, but that's really only in survey courses. Once you hit upper levels, it's all about the cause-effect of particular events and implications of said events. That means that we attempt to discover how we got to this point, in 2011. That aspect of history is the usual "How can you know we're you're going if you don't know where you've been?" line. For example, immigration policy of the past informs current immigration policy. But there's a lot more to it than that. And after all, we're speculating. We don't have all the answers. Sorry to disappoint anyone.
In addition to all that, historians explore the history of history, which is called "historiography." This topic is really heady, and gets confusing from time to time. Historians, like me, examine what other historians, like one of my professors for example, had to say about a particular event or topic. And of course, each historian has a different take on a certain topic. Granted, some things are historical truths, but they can be interepreted in any number of different ways. That was a really nice segway to your next point, Em. Why thank you, Em. Okay, I need to point out here that ALL history is someone's interpretation of what happened in the past, which to many, makes the study of history entirely futile. And to them I say, your face is futile! Then, I say, well, doubter of history, the great thing about interpretation is that it says something about the time period it was produced in. And that, my friends, or enemies, or whoever you are, is why we study history. Any document, photograph, exhibit, letter, or what have you, that's been saved from a particular time period demonstrates what those people thought was important in that time period. Moreover, any history of a topic or event that was produced demonstrates how historians thought about that topic or event in the past. In terms of public history, a plaque memorializing a particular individual says a lot about what people of that time period valued. For example, if today, in 2011, a plaque was created to commemorate a famous protector of the environment, people would look back and determine that people of our time period really cared about the environmental movements and individuals who were vital to their creation.
So hopefully all of that makes sense. I know it's probably still difficult for you to understand why I enjoy the study and practice of history. For me, it's exciting in that "I finally figured out this algebra problem that I've been working on for 3 hours" kind of way. It's finding that perfect piece of evidence that says exactly what you need it to say. I should also mention that much of what I do as a public history major is read and write. If you know me well, you know that reading and writing is practically all I do these days. Historians are always trying to learn more about particular events, times, and places, and I have discovered that I have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. So history works for me. In addition, I have a huge passion for writing, so that works out nicely as well. Finally, history is not black and white, and accepted interpretations of historical events are always changing. Perhaps new evidence was found, or historians just looked at an old piece of evidence through a different lens. For some reason, it's fun, challenging, exciting, inspiring, horrifying, and beautiful, all at the same time.
So, with all that in mind, I'm imagining that this blog will be just random things about what's happening in the history world (and things do happen! It's not just a bunch of old professors in their smoking jackets discussing the repercussions of the Treaty of Versailles, which has been discussed to death, by the way). I'll also include some updates on my history capstones (yes, you saw that right, two of them).
So,if you read this thing, great! If you even like it, fantastic! If you kind of like it, but I could do something to make it better, tell me! If you don't read it, fine. If you don't like it, fine. Trust me, I won't be offended, because even my friends find my major boring!
No comments:
Post a Comment