h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just in passing because I don't have much time. Jodan, if you write something like this:

"Otto, that branch of history is a specialized one, and as the wikipedia entry says, it aims to look at history through a certain perspective. If you want to write about history from a certain perspective, that's fine."

If I'm understanding her correctly, that is exactly what she is saying. You are writing from a white (?) male, middle class (?) perspective. How about we let black feminists rewrite history from their POV. It would look very different. We know from experience that if there are 20 different witnesses to an event, we will get 20 (even slightly) different reports.

"You'll notice I never said that I only believe in a 'great men' style of history. I believe in a history that focuses on important events and influences. Social history, as far as I can tell from that wikipedia entry, falls squarely within that definition."

Thanks for the clarification, Jodan. I had interpreted your previous posts as implying the opposite. Whether that's because I misunderstood, or because they invited that interpretation, or a bit of both, isn't really relevant. In general I think we're more or less in agreement on this.

"But I don't think historians should focus on what is not necessarily important to the history of the world because it is not often looked at. That's affirmative action for history, or what I think is called positive discrimination on that side of the Atlantic."

No, it's not 'affirmative action', it's a different view about what is important. The history of the role of women in society/political movements is surely important, and it's important to understanding the past as well as for our present.

The study of history seems to be me to be as much about the present as about the past. I know fairly little about the founding of America, not because of British sour grapes, but it's just not as important to us over here. It's part of the narrative of your country's history, so it's on the curriculum. The equivalent over here is perhaps WWII, which has a stranglehold on UK popular history because, throughout or chequered history, standing alone against one of the world's most evil regimes when we could easily have negotiated peace, is something that the nation can be unequivocally proud of.

If the choice of *what* history we study as well as *how* we study it is determined by the needs of the present, surely the needs of the present also require an understanding of the role of women?

"How about we let black feminists rewrite history from their POV."

Would they come to the conclusion that George Washington wasn't possibly the most important person in the formation of the USA?

Course they wouldn't.

Hello, I'm a Historian (not a particularly good one). I'm even quite clued up as a Social Historian (*gasp*). And I, for the most part, agree with Jodan.

If you've got a limited amount of space (such as on hootoo) to write about a subject, you include the MOST IMPORTANT AND INFLUENTIAL people involved. That's (for example) my Nazi Germany leadership entry focuses mainly on a handful of men instead of branching out and including Eva Braun, Leni Riefenstahl, even Magda Goebbels, all of whom would make it into a book, dissertation or thesis. That's the way the world works. And it's not all a skewed distortion brought about by those evil white men. Look at histories of the Suffragettes. How many mentions of Richard Pankhurst* do you see? Or for that matter, how much literature about the American Civil Rights movement mentions the progressive liberal elements of the white middle classes? Not much in either case. Because they weren't the most important people involved!

As for someone throwing down a link to "Social History". That's on the wane at the moment anyway because whereas orthodox "Great Man" history simplifies history into "x happened because of Napoleon/Hitler/Henry VIII", social history tends to blame everything ever on either "the masses" or "the economy". What you really want is a good Post-Revisionist slant. That way we can sit on the fence between the two!


*a white middle class male who was a supporter of female enfranchisement before he married his much more famous wife.

Psycorp, it's been said over and over and over again that we're not talking about this entry in particular, or any entry in particular, or h2g2 in particular, just about history in general.

Social history may well be on the wane, but my point was never that 'great man' history or 'political history' ought to be replaced or ignored - just that social history was a valid part of historical study (a point on which everyone now seems to agree), and that 'great man' history wasn't telling the whole story.

If advocates of social history have tried to reduce everything to societal or economic forces, that seems to be to be just as misguided as ignoring those factors entirely.

"If advocates of social history have tried to reduce everything to societal or economic forces, that seems to be to be just as misguided as ignoring those factors entirely."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_n31/ai_13991694

Some of the criticisms of 'Revisionist' social history in there are worth looking at. The rest of the article is tosh, written by a relic of a bygone era of historical study.

As for the "not talking about h2g2", the discussion was prompted by an article on h2g2, so I just wanted to point out how the space constraints of this particular medium mean that the smaller players don't get their space on the stage. It's also true of a number of smaller works. When you've got a chapter or so to get through a large chunk of history, some things get omitted. Why omit information on the movers and shakers to focus more on someone who may have made a suggestion? I say may, because I never saw anything in the National Archives saying "Mr Bevin acted thusly to Mr Molotov, on the advice of his secretary..."

Although this isn't about a specific article, I'd like to point out that it's quite unfair to expect Jodan to include information on women helping the Founding Fathers if there's none in the history books. Even if he were to trawl through archives there wouldn't be much, if any information, which is a major reason *why* there's none in the history books.

"Even if he were to trawl through archives there wouldn't be much, if any information, which is a major reason *why* there's none in the history books."

Once again, not necessarily about my entry, but it's not anti-woman to not focus on women when none merit a mention. It's not always due to perspective that women are left out. In many cases, there really and truly is not that much to say without expanding the scope of the entry pretty significantly.

"Would they come to the conclusion that George Washington wasn't possibly the most important person in the formation of the USA?

Course they wouldn't."

And unfortunately, that would not be historically inaccurate. Perspective doesn't come into play in this. It's an issue of fact. (and I'm using my entry as an example, just as others have used their entries as examples in this discussion) If not for George Washington, or without someone similar who would have filled the void of leadership in his absence, there probably would not be a United States of America as we know it. That's perhaps from the Great Man perspective of history, and y'know, I don't care if you look at it from any other perspective, it's absolutely the right perspective to take on that issue.

Writing from a set perspective can warp the facts. I suppose we're all writing from our own perspectives, but quite frankly, what most amateur historians are doing on this site isn't trailblazing a new kind of history. They (at least the good ones) are relying on scholarship that has been created over and reviewed for, in some cases, the course of centuries.

I think that every subject demands its own treatment. An entry on the Civil Rights movement would largely be a social history, but it would be quite a bad entry if it didn't look at figures like Martin Luther King, Jr from the Great Man perspective. Women's history is an appropriate focus for entries about women, and I would personally have no problem with an entry that focuses on women in a part of history they're not usually considered in, or men in a field like women's suffrage. Those are interesting supplements to history, but they cannot form the basis of history itself, in my opinion.

If you're writing the Big Book of History, you would probably include a bit about women's suffrage, but might leave out something about men who fought for voting rights for females. Different perspectives are, most of the time interesting, and some of the time valuable. Putting an unusual perspective into a general entry or book, though, is not something I would favor. There's a big difference between an entry/book focused on Male 'Suffragettes' and an entry/book about Women's Suffrage which gives undue focus on men.

Jodan, I don't disagree with any of that.

Your entry is about the 'founding fathers' and the people who happened to be leaders, that none of them were women is just historical fact. If you were writing a broader entry about how America came to be independent, it would be incomplete without mentioning the role of women, but that's not what you're trying to do. I think this is something that everyone agrees on.

"If not for George Washington, or without someone similar who would have filled the void of leadership in his absence, there probably would not be a United States of America as we know it."

I think this illustrates it nicely. The 'void' was filled by George Washington, and therefore George Washington is deserving of serious historical study. But the reasons why there was a cause to be led (why people followed) is something that can't just be explained by reference to George Washington, but which needs a broader explanation which takes social factors into account. Both are valid approaches, and we need both to understand what happened.

Psycorp, thanks for the link. I've read the first few pages, and while it seems a bit ad homenim to me, there are some interesting points made, assuming that the author isn't guilty of the same 'straw targets' approach that he accuses others of. I'll read more when I have a bit more time.

Elentari, I agree about the limits of what we can reasonably expect from h2g2 researchers. My point was just to take issue with what I saw as a dismissal of any kind of history other than 'great man' or 'political' history. But through discussion we've clarified that this isn't Jodan's view.

"Assuming that the author isn't guilty of the same 'straw targets' approach that he accuses others of"

Oh don't assume that. He gets very personal and very unprofessional. It's just an exaggerated example of the criticisms of social history. Worth a read just for the petulance towards the end though!

>>You are writing from a white (?) male, middle class (?) perspective. How about we let black feminists rewrite history from their POV.

I don't think a black feminist could say anything else about the founding fathers than was said. That is because black women had almost zero to do with them, unless you want to count Jefferson's mistress. The view from underneath is an interesting viewpoint for history, but in terms of significant events, it's not terribly relevant.

Let's face it: much of western history is dominated by dead white christian males, generally because those white christian males stomped all over everyone else, but that doesn't detract from the fact that non-white non-christian non-males didn't influence events to the same extent.

We all know that Dolly Madison saved the silver and portrait of George WAshington. But it was her husband who directed the war. Can you compare the two roles? Or would you have us believe that she was a military genius who secretly told her husband what to direct the generals?

And speaking of straw targets....

*wonders what he started, but is enjoying it nonetheless*

Dang. Did I say something stupid?

I only mentioned a black feminist rewrite of history to show that there might be different perspectives.

Nobody would dispute the bare facts of history - but I for one want to know a little more. Why did Emmeline Pankhurst's husband turn out to be such a great support of Votes for Women? Maybe his mother's, grandmother's or wife's influence? It may not be vitally important, but the influence - from whom or wherever - could have been there.

And let's not forget that these busy guys (pretty much as busy guys now) often have families and are freed up to do the really "important" work because their wives and mothers are doing the boring but necessary stuff.

I'm not advocating a rewrite of history at all, and if you recall I did say that this entry (for all that we are not talking about it) didn't need founding mothers or native Americans. Just making a comment or two to see what came up.

And now I'm off. History is only interesting to me if it involves swords and castles

Sorry, Leo. That was discourteous of me.

There's nothing wrong with what you say, it's just that with much of what you say, no-one has argued otherwise. No-one has tried to claim that, secretly, women and ethnic minorities have been pulling the strings of history only to be airbrushed from history. What some people are claiming (or what I'm claiming) is that the role of the non-white and the role of women in history is important in context, even if their achievements are less than those of men because of social norms - see my earlier point about Marie Curie.

Where I don't agree is with this:

"The view from underneath is an interesting viewpoint for history, but in terms of significant events, it's not terribly relevant."

Which is more or less where I can in, really. I'm just trying to make the very modest point that "top down" "great men" histories will not tell the whole story. I'm absolutely not claiming that such histories aren't valid or appropriate ways of doing history. But what I am doing is staking a modest claim on behalf of wider social history as a way of explaining events.

Social history or exploring the role of women might not tell us much about the following: the Battle of the Somme in WWI, the Congress of Vienna which ended the Napoleonic Wars, or the tactics used at the Battle of Hastings.

However.... I think all of the following "significant events" cannot be explained without a role for social history, including (but not limited to) the role of women: the French Revolution, the end of empires and the rise of nationalism, the abolition of the slave trade (in whatever country), the rise of Fascism etc etc etc

Oh, and I'm off to find out about Richard Pankhurst, who sounds like an interesting character. He might have not got much publicity, but other male proponents of women's sufferage, such as John Stuart Mill, get plenty. There were also a number of other men who advocated votes for women in the Chartist movement.

But a history of the sufferagettes that only concentrates on the "great women" - the leaders - is incomplete for exactly the same reason that a history of any movement that only focuses on the leaders is incomplete. For all of the Pankhursts and the Davisons, there were many others whose rank-and-file support was key to the movement, and understanding how and why a movement came to be formed is key, as is understanding the actions and characters of the leaders.

One other point I'd like to make (my last post was written as I was rushing out the door this morning) is that that not every point of view towards history is valid. Some will say, "that's just your point of view", and some will apparently see it fit to say it's the standard, white, male, middle class view. But to paraphrase U42, there's a burden of proof there that you have to contend with. You can't just say the moon is made of Norwegian Beaver cheese, and because no one who is in the conversation has been there, declare that point of view to be as valid as those who have studied the moon, and concluded it is made of rock.

That's something that frustrated me about this conversation, that I was told several times that I was operating from a very specific point of view, and that it was wrong, without being told any specifics about what's wrong with my point of view. You have to defend why a particular point of view towards history fits with the story of a particular event or the life of a particular person. It really doesn't make sense to me to promote a particular brand of history, like 'women's history', or 'social history'. Trying to look at history through a particular lens will inevitably result in a distorted picture, and you'll see mountains in molehills. You'll see things that aren't there.

"not every point of view towards history is valid"

I agree entirely and absolutely. One of the banes of the modern age is the odd view that there's no such thing as truth and false, better and worse, right and wrong, good or bad. And I hate it when people use "I have a right to my opinion" as a fig leaf for not having any good reasons for that opinion. I think I may even have started a thread asking what it means to say that someone has a right to their opinion, and whether people really do.

"I was told several times that I was operating from a very specific point of view, and that it was wrong, without being told any specifics about what's wrong with my point of view."

I don't think I've said that. In fact, I've been at some pains not to say that, though whether I have succeeded or not, I can't say. All I'm saying is that the "great man" way of doing history can, in many cases, be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete. And I think I've given lots of examples of key events in history where this is true.

I shall attempt to forgive you, Otto. I was tilting at imaginary feminist college professors - they're all mad. But I don't think anyone is going to deprive women of their role in the French Revolution - it's too blatant. We're talking the fuzzy areas, aren't we?

"I was tilting at imaginary feminist college professors - they're all mad."

We had one stand up and declare that 'Feminism is /the/ most important ideology of the 20th Century.'

As someone who studied both World Wars, the Cold War and Civil Rights in the US and South Africa, I'd like to argue against that one.