Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of archaeology in history
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of archaeology in history
History lapses from millions and millions of years ago. With all these different events that have taken place, historical figures, and artifacts, how do we expose these things to our publics? Public history is not clearly defined, but in the textbook, Introduction to Public History, the early founder of an early graduate program in public history, Robert Kelly, defined it as, “The employment of historians and the historical method outside of academia”(Lyons, pg.1-2). I believe it is ways that history is applied to real-world issues through the considerations of public audiences, shared authority, collaboration, and reflective practice. This practice is focused on the general audiences rather than academia, it is about what a diverse group …show more content…
In Introduction to Public History says, “All forms of history begin in the same place: with solid historical research based on a rigorous examination of available sources...rely on the systematic and critical examination of sources within their historical contexts to reveal stories of the past...we assign meaning to the past, taking a wide range of materials and using them to form a coherent argument about the meaning and significance of past events. These practices make up the historical method”(Lyons, pg.2). Although, there are certain distinctions that make public history stray away from traditional histories such as audience, collaboration, and reflective practice. These distinctions are what make the field of public history stand out since anything can be labeled as public history but to a certain …show more content…
They collaborate with both in order to see how they best serve both of them. This form of history doesn’t necessarily appeal or want the special insight from historians, rather it wants the communities insight, engagement, and answer the concerns the public raises. In the textbook, Introduction to Public History, it says, “Collaboration with the stakeholders whose history is being told is one of the defining features of public history work” (Lyons, 3). This entails there needs to be communication with outside sources to gather such information with professionals in other areas of expertise. Traditional academic historians usually work alone rather than a team, but with public history, it’s essential to collaborate and that is one of the defining characteristics of public
The larger repercussions of this form of history, is that it misses out on the larger purpose of history. The most important part of history to be told truthfully is the bad part. Imagine our history glazing over Hitler as a crazy guy who acted alone, and forced everybody in Germany to go along with his plan. We need to hear the story that regular people were pulled into his mentality, that random Joe's were converted into Jew-hating murderers.
The study of past events have been a common practice of mankind since the verbal telling of stories by our ancestors. William Cronon, in his article “Why the Past Matters,” asserts that the remembrance of the past “keeps us in place.” Our individual memories and experiences shape how we act in our daily lives. In addition to influencing us at an individual level, our collective history binds us together as a society. Without knowing where we have been or what we have experienced, it is nearly impossible to judge progress or know which courses of action to pursue. The goal of the historian is to analyze and explain past events, of which they rarely have firsthand memory of, and apply the gained knowledge to make connections with current and future events.
The freedom of expression in style in content gives us an unimpeded view of what is seen as right and wrong. Historical books, however, are based on fact and can give primary accounts of events. While wording can get in the way of clearly representing a culture, it does recount behaviors. Much like the oft-discredited psychoanalyst Sigmund Frued, it records what happened very well, but its interpretations can be disconnected. By combining primary and secondary sources, we can get a well-rounded factual and cultural view of a city ripe with change in a newly emerging world.
The Progressive Era is defined as the period of social activism and political reform in the United States that took place from the 1890s to the 1920s. Historians George Mowry, Gabriel Kolko, and Joseph Huthmacher all have different opinions and reasons as to whom the most influential Progressives were and what they reformed. Mowry does an excellent job explaining how the “solid middle-class” was the most impactful Progressives and how they reformed in attempt to create a classless society. Kolko expressed some good points as to why the big businesses were the majority Progressives, but only focused on business-government relations and didn’t look into social-justice. Huthmacher thoroughly explained why the urban lower class was the main Progressives and made good points on the “Bread-and-butter” issues.
One must decide the meaning of "progressive historiography." It can mean either the history written by "progressive historians," or it can mean history written by historians of the Progressive era of American history and shortly after. The focus that was chosen for this paper is more in keeping with the latter interpretation, if for no other reason than it provides a useful compare-and-contrast "control" literature.
The word progress has several different meanings. These definitions played a vital role in American thought. From the initial immigrants to the first government, progress was always on the American mind. Wars were fought on the grounds on progress. The first United States president represented progress. Everything America stands for is based on the progression of its people.
A beginning group of historians to take a closer look at is the empiricists. The empiricists have a very strictly factual and logical view on history and how to examine it. They believe that past is both “observable and verifiable” and that through adherence to three strict principles, the past can be represented objectively and accurately. (Green, Troup 3) The three aforementioned principles can be summed up as: meticulously examining historical evidence and verifying the evidence with references, making sure the research is completely impartial and free of biases and prejudices, and using an inductive, or observational, method of reasoning. (Green, Troup 3) The empiricists seek to find universal historical truths through objective research and sticking to the facts.
...xpect nor want historians to agree in their interpretations of the past, for then new discoveries would never be made and our knowledge would be limited. It is through this synthesis of knowledge and constant dialogue between historians that the most comprehensive representation of the Progressive Era, and ultimately history in general, is created.
...ome available, or visit the local college and ask permission to sit in on a class. It seems to me that history is happening right now, so it is also my responsibility to form some understanding of current events, whether they are local, regional or national. Just like what was taking place during the time of Nat Turner, issues and events of the day impact all of us.
Public History is a relatively new field and even though it is not the newest field in history, it is still not fully established. One reason for this is that there is not an exact definition of Public History. It is still in its beginning stages and exists as more of a general idea rather than something easily defined. Most public historians find it easiest to define it by giving examples of jobs that fall into the Public History field. For example, Kelley states, “In its simplest meaning, Public History refers to the employment of historians and the historical method outside of academia: in government, private corporations, the media, historical societies and museums, even in private practice.” Schulz, on the other hand, said that in the early years of this field, Public History “was (mistakenly) too often simply defined by what it was not – i.e., not academic history…” However, that is not a definition. While it is difficult to give this field a solid definition, I believe that it can be defined as an attempt to produce a new type of historian, one that thinks and learns like academic historians, approaches their audience at the audience’s level, and teaches the public while sharing the authority with them. With this definition, a public historian could be virtually anyone, in any field. It implies that public history is not a specific job that you get but instead it is training to think and therefore act in a different way.
Historians look at both sides of the event gaining an understanding of the causes or factors leading to the event itself. Historians thus must produce questions in order to study the past events (Dunn). In April 199...
History is very important for everyone, and everyone should learn about history. Learning History can help to learn about people situation and life from the past. It also helps to know about many events and even some fact from the past. When people want to learn history, they should search about any subject or event from the past and tries to learn the both side of the subject. They also need to try to find what is hidden from that subject, so they can learn more about it. They also need to find out who wrote the subject that they learn about, for not all the historian show the bad side of the event, and they just show the good side. When people know they both side the can have a good judgment about the event. For example, before taking the
When people are a part of history, often times, it is because they made a change. History has the tendency of repeating itself. It is 2016 and the United States is once again fighting a war that was “supposedly” resolved decades ago. Being a part of history includes: being talked about, being persistent and determined for change, fighting for a meaning and/or change, and for everyone to unit.
The issues that are raised in this source by Marc Trachtenberg are is whether or not objectivity is still a relevant idea, and if it is not then is history in fact dying. Keith Jenkins' "What is History?," Carl Becker's "What are Historical Facts?" and Richard Evans' "In Defence of History" will be used to discuss and examine these issues.
History is everywhere today. I don’t think some people really realize how broad the word history really is. Basically when someone hears the word history they automatically think of some sort of culture like the ancient Egyptians, or some important date like December 7, 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor, when the United States officially entered the Second World War. But people don’t really realize there are so many other types of history. World leaders are making history with wars, conflicts, and new laws; movies are making history by selling outrageous numbers of tickets, athletes are making history by setting records everyday, and students are making history by graduating college. Every part of what you do is some type of history