History Assignment

His own definition of what is History starts with the common sense that history is about
facts and simply collecting as many facts as possible. According to his viewpoint, facts
are like fish on a fishmonger's slab, ready to be selected and cooked if there are basic
facts, raw materials, or raw information, but the facts only speak when the historian calls
on them.
Carr contrasts the Battle of Hastings, which took place in 1066, with the killing of a
gingerbread vendor by a mob in 1850. The former is chosen over the latter because it is
thought to be more useful for understanding something larger. On the one hand, we have
the historian of the present making a decision about which facts to select. On the other
hand, there are records like letters, diaries, and treaties.
E. H Carr claims that the only way to access historical truths is through the present since
the phrases he uses, such as "democracy," "Empire War," and "Revolution," have
contemporary meanings from which he is unable to disassociate them. He claims that the
historian is involved in an ongoing process of molding his facts to his interpretation and
his interpretation to his facts; it is impossible to give one precedence over the other in this
dialogue between historical facts and the historian's contextualized present. He claims
that the past is only fully understandable in the context of the present.
- Edward Hallett Carr
Charles Austin Beard said that "If an existing science that belongs to history happened to
be achieved, it would, such as the science that belongs to celestial mechanics, make
possible the calculable prediction that belongs to the future inside of history. It would
bring the totality that belongs to historical occurrences within an existing single field as
well as reveal the unfolding future to its last end.
Including every single one the apparent choices made as well as made. It would exist as a
omniscient. The creator that belongs to it would possess the attributes ascribed by the
theologians to god. Inside of the future once revealed humanity would have nothing to do
except await its doom.
- Charles Austin Beard
John Dalberg-Acton was an independent researcher who was active in the liberal Catholic
movement. He favored the application of scientific methods to historical inquiry and was
particularly passionate about the study of liberty. As he said “Power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely” but of far deeper significance was his lifelong study
of the history of freedom.
It was a work never completed. Lord Acton's view on his own definition of history are
truth and truthfulness, as well as Acton's differing opinions and eventual departure from
his mentor, Ignaz von Dollinger. He did not rely on the information that he was provided
by the others, but rather do it on his own perspective and initiative on his own works and
that is how it differentiate to other historian about what History is and it’s meaning.
- John Dalberg-Acton
In my perspective, there is no true answer to what is History. Based on other historians,

have different meanings or their own definitions of what is History all about. E. H. Carr,
started with the basic facts but slowly but surely he gradually shifted his own idea.
Historians should work to transform society as much as other disciplines do. E. H. Carr
has come under fire for holding a relativistic view of history, according to which the facts
and issues are decided by the present, making it impossible to understand the past
objectively.
But through optimism about the future, E. H. Carr also tries to draw a route back to
objectivity picking facts through the value of progress. It's a unique argument and many
have claimed it doesn't hold today but the text, both short and rich is still held as a classic
introduction to the question what is history.
He says “The historian is engaged in a continuous process molding his facts to his
interpretation and his interpretation to his fact it is impossible to assign primacy to one
over the other” this process is a dialogue between facts in the past and the historian
contextualized in the present
He says “The past is intelligible to us only in the light of the present and we can fully
understand the present only in the light of the past”. He then goes on to say that the
process is not just an individual one the man whose actions the historian studies were not
isolated individuals acting in a vacuum they acted in the context and under the impulse of
a past society.
E. H. Carr moves to compare the process of the historian to the process of the inductive
method in science. He says scientists no longer really spend their time searching for the
laws of nature but instead come up with a hypothesis test whether it's a fact then reassess
science is also driven by a back and forth and by values.
In the present he explores a number of objections to history being a science problem

sizing them in turn for example it is said that science deals with the general and history
with the particular with unique events but he argues that history is also general for
example the historian looks for the causes of the phenomenon of war or revolutions these
are general categories.
What is History?
E. H. Carr
Facts
Different Opinions
Primary Sources
Scholars
Historians
Misinformation
Evidences J. D. Acton
Science
Problem with Secondary
Sources Sources

History Assignment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

His own definition of what is History starts with the common sense that history is about

- Edward Hallett Carr

In my perspective, there is no true answer to what is History. Based on other historians,

In the present he explores a number of objections to history being a science problem

You might also like