A common misconception that many people seem to have is the idea that History is something that doesn't change and can only be studied as a series of different events, people, places, etc. However, Brundage provides an extremely interesting argument for those people. It is his feeling that history is constantly changing and evolving because different Historians are causing it to. For example, although we all have a decent understanding of what happened during the Holocaust, all it takes is another Historian to analyze the Holocaust from a different perspective and then the history of the Holocaust "changes."
It is also important to note that every historian looks at history in their own ways. To stick with the Holocaust theme; there are countless reports, articles, books, etc. written about the event, but that doesn't mean they are going to offer up the same information to the reader. One perspective could be the narrative, which we spoke about in class a little bit, where a history writes about what happened in more of a story while another historian focuses in on the social aspect of the Holocaust and how the prisoners of the camps and the SS interacted. Both historians are writing about the same topic, but the reader is going to come away with much different information because of their unique perspectives.
Question: If ancient historians, and I mean all the way back to Pharaohs and pyramids, had access to the technology we do today, how would history be different?
No comments:
Post a Comment