Emotion in history?

[thejester]

So in my various travels recently I stumbled across an article by a British academic, Jill Stephenson: 'Generations, Emotion and Critical Enquiry: A British View of Changing Approaches to the Study of Nazi Germany', German History, 26/2, 2008. Stephenson (who is Professor of Modern German History at the University of Edinburgh), observes the ways in which it appears that "'emotionality, from whatever motives, has taken over rationality'" in the study of Nazi Germany; the epitome of this being Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners. She also cites some slightly more laughable examples, such as an art historian declaring 'one can only look at the art of the Third Reich through the lens of the Holocaust'. But then it goes back to the dark: she quotes Andrew Stuart Bergeron:

Holocaust denial is still alive and well in our global public sphere. . . . In its extreme version, this neofascist litany denies that the Holocaust ever existed as such. In its subtle version, it argues simply that ordinary people did not know about the crimes of the Third Reich and therefore [sic] cannot be held responsible for them. At the core of the latter claim stands an ambiguous admixture of antisemitism on the one hand and an unwillingness to face the prospect of industrial-bureaucratic mass murder on the other.

As Stephenson writes, that is a serious charge not merely on a personal level but a professional one too: it challenges the very basis of the historical profession, that disagreement is acceptable if based in solid scholarship.


This is what interests me from Stephenson's article (although it covers a lot of ground - including the issue of German guilt, a fairly frequent topic on here - and is well worth a read if you can get your hands on it). The theme that runs throughout it is that having an emotional investment in the topic of your work erodes the professionalism of that work; the ability to make reasoned judgments and assessments of the available evidence evaporates. She argues Goldhagen - who is a political scientist, not[/i] a historian - is the perfect example of this. She doesn't limit herself to examples from the study of the Holocaust, either: she points to, as one example, a generation of Irish historians who, after independence, deliberately took the emotion out of the Great Potato Famine and treated it 'as an historical event rather than as a national tragedy'. Historians should not be forced to make a moral judgment on their subject; the absence of that judgment does not mean they condone the actions or events of the subject; and they should not be accused of anti-antisemitism, Holocaust denial or anything else.

Reading this argument in Stephenson's article, I found myself in strong agreement for a number of reasons. From personal experience in two fields, emotional attachment in the two fields I've studied/am studying - strategic bombing and the Vietnam War - has produced an enfeebled historiography in which there's a real derth of quality, original research but no shortage of poorly-thought out and argued works rooted in the emotional experience of the time. It's an old truism that no historian is without bias but nonetheless must do their best to remove this bias; it gets drummed into you from high school onwards. As Stephen Fry's character in Absolute Power suggests, there's also an issue of trust: history, as a profession, rests on the reader trusting the historian to have been honest in his research and writing, 'the facts on which they speculate are indeed facts'.

But on further reflection, I questioned my agreement. Some of my favourite pieces of historical writing have been an open rebellion against this 'scientific' method of history. One is C.L.R James' The Black Jacobins, a history of the Haitian revolution. James openly acknowledges that his work was an attempt to put blacks at the center of their own revolution, in order to inspire the anti-colonial movement of the 1930s. He never hides his own emotional attachment to the slave cause - but as the introduction of my copy states, it remains (As of 2001 at least) one of the standard works of the Haitian Revolution, a piece of historical research that has stood up to over 60 years examination (incidentally, James was not a historian: he's most famous as one of the first, great, cricket writers). Another is the work of Manning Clark. Clark was, in his day, Australia's most influential historian and when he died in the early 90s he left an enormous legacy in the way Australia is viewed and studied, mainly through his mammoth History of Australia, which spanned six volumes and was written and published over a span of twenty five years. Neither his detractors or his fans deny the nature of his work: short on footnoting, long on ideas. Clark (pretty openly) lost his faith in religion early in life (keeping in mind this is a) 1940s Australia and b) his old man was a vicar) but found no comfort in secularism and so was tormented by his inability to find meaning; this turned into a view of the tragedy of human history, something that strongly informed his work (and if you read the start of Volume 1, published in the early 60s, and Volume 6, published in the 80s, you can really see the difference) and gave it a real literary quality. In a very real way, the emotion of Clark's work is it's ultimate strength: he looked to not merely to create a narrative but 'say something' as he put it.

So I was left wondering: does emotion have a place in history? In removing the emotion from 'national tragedies' and turning them into 'historical events', do historians also strip any relevancy from their work? Or should they simply try and create a balanced historical record and let others interpret it at their own leisure?

[TC Pilot]

So I was left wondering: does emotion have a place in history?

Absolutely. Historians are human just like anyone else. They've invested years upon years of their lives studying their respective field, a field they've likely chosen as a result of some personal interest in that area, perhaps even as a result of personal involvement in that area. It's impossible to be dispassionate about your subject.

Or should they simply try and create a balanced historical record and let others interpret it at their own leisure?

If they try, they'll fail. No historian can physically hope to include all information, certainly not in any coherent, readable fashion. They must inevitably choose which information to include or exclude, whether on the basis of relevance, importance, or style.

The problem lies in the extent and intent of the bias. Biography can turn to hagiography, history to propaganda or dogma. Now, generally speaking we can suppose the historian isn't actively lying to us/isn't incompetent. So, at best we can hope the author acknowledges his own biases. If not, then hopefully the reader can spot it upon reading other historians on the same subject.

[HMS Sophia]

It's something that is drilled into us in class.
History, and the writings of historians, will always have a bias, depending on who writes it. Unless you are simply going to write facts, there will be some personal bias in your writing. It's what we are taught to look for, because it's very important when studying someone's writings.
Most of the bias, of course, comes from the emotions a historian feels about a subject. It's much more apparent in Post-war historians writings about WW2 than it is in modern writers writing about the same subject, because of when those writers grew up or lived.

does emotion have a place in history?

Yes absolutely. It's very difficult for a historian to not write in a biased fashion, and the emotion they feel about a subject is just as important to a student of history as the event itself. (well, not quite, but you know what I mean)

[Akhlut]

A historian is going to reveal some manner of bias in what they write on anyway; as TC Pilot said, the historian must choose to discard some information based on what s/he thinks is relevant or irrelevant.

After that, it is really up to the historian and what they wish to accomplish with their writing. Emotion can, and frankly probably should, play a role here. A disinterested "just the facts" report on the subject is probably not going to stick with people or make them consider the event's importance. "The Nazis killed some people, so what?" "All right, so the British policies in Ireland made the potato famine worse, big deal." Without some emotion attached, history ceases to have importance, in my opinion, and becomes just a list of facts without greater application to the world.

Just my $0.02.

[Purple]

Am I the only one who thinks that historians should try and be as unbiased as possible and stick to the facts?
I mean, why should scientific accountability and objectivity not apply to historians?

Yes they will have to discard some information but they have to be extremely careful to ensure they do so based on the informations reliability and not personal preference. The moment historians start fallowing an agenda like glorifying this or vilifying that how can one trust anything they say any more? Are they than any different than the medical doctor who writes a fraudulent article about a new drug or the physicist who cheats in his numbers to get a theory through?

I really don't see any excuse to hold historians to standards different than those used for any other type of scientists.

[HMS Sophia]

The moment historians start fallowing an agenda like glorifying this or vilifying that how can one trust anything they say any more?

That's the point, you don't trust what they say. Instead you analyse it, discuss it, study their other writings, and work out why that person is writing like that.
Objectivity is all well and good, but personal bias' will always affect which information you discard, even if it isn't obvious. To say they are going to glorify or vilify something isn't right, it's much more subtle than that. Instead, some historians will simply gloss over the nastier bits. Here, children are taught about them damn Nazi's, and how bad the bombings were in London and other places. It's very rare they will be taught about the fire bombing of Dresden. (Is an example, and the first that came too mind).
It's not fraudulent, it's just... ignoring the bad bits on your side. It happens, because, like it or not, a person from that nation, dosn't like admitting his countrymen slaughtered women and children.

[Purple]

It's not fraudulent, it's just... ignoring the bad bits on your side. It happens, because, like it or not, a person from that nation, dosn't like admitting his countrymen slaughtered women and children.

Kind of like how a medical doctor might just be inclined, like it or not to ignore the more nasty side effects of the drug he is developing? Or like how a physicist might be inclined to gloss over the shaky bits in his new theory?

You can call it what ever you want. But when it comes down to it ignoring parts of history you don't like to remember is just plain and simply fraud. A historian must always strive to provide a complete and neutral picture of events not his own version.

[HMS Sophia]

You can call it what ever you want. But when it comes down to it ignoring parts of history you don't like to remember is just plain and simply fraud. A historian must always strive to provide a complete and neutral picture of events not his own version.

I see your point, I really do. And from what I've read, history is becoming more like this these days. You are much more likely to find what you would call fraud in older works than in newer releases, and especially in more general works. After all, how fraudulent can you get in a piece on the communications equipment and capabilities of nations fighting during WW1 (that's what the PHD of one of my lecturers was based on).
Bias is much more prevalent when:
A) The historians nation has been directly affected by the event
B) The event is recent.

Now note, most of my experience is in military history, as that's what my course is, but this is when I see it in the writings I look at. Studies down the line are much more neutral.

There is one last thing I have to mention, and that is classification. Much of the history written during the cold war was very one sided, and would look fraudulent. However, this is mainly due too the classified nature of many soviet files. This has led to a group of Historian's appearing since the '90s known as 'Revisionists' who write histories that are much more neutral, mainly because they have better access to records from both sides. So bias is not always the Historians fault, but sometimes unavoidable.

[TC Pilot]

Am I the only one who thinks that historians should try and be as unbiased as possible and stick to the facts?

No, you're not.

Of course, declaring that historians should "stick to the facts" is basically a meaningless buzz word. Very few historians (and the ones that do generally get blacklisted for it) actually make up the information that they present.

Yes they will have to discard some information but they have to be extremely careful to ensure they do so based on the informations reliability and not personal preference.

Really? Just based on reliability? Nothing to do with, for example, redundancy or readability? I don't think you quite grasp the sheer scope of information you're dealing with here. And I wasn't aware there was some established benchmark of reliability we can appeal to. Can you please show it to me?

The moment historians start fallowing an agenda like glorifying this or vilifying that how can one trust anything they say any more?

barnest2 basically covered this, though it's worth emphasizing that "following an agenda" =/= "bias." You basically establish a false dichotomy of either "stick with the facts" or "write a fraudulent article/cheats in his numbers." That's really not the case at all.

[Purple]

Really? Just based on reliability? Nothing to do with, for example, redundancy or readability?

Do you know what the word reliable means?

barnest2 basically covered this, though it's worth emphasizing that "following an agenda" =/= "bias." You basically establish a false dichotomy of either "stick with the facts" or "write a fraudulent article/cheats in his numbers." That's really not the case at all.

It is not false at all. It is just that you seem to be missing the point. You call this "fallowing an agenda" as if it was always a contious act where it might well not be.

barnest2 gave a perfect example when he said:

Here, children are taught about them damn Nazi's, and how bad the bombings were in London and other places. It's very rare they will be taught about the fire bombing of Dresden. (Is an example, and the first that came too mind).

This is exatcly the kind of things historians need to avoid at all cost. If you are writing a historical document about WW2 than you need to mention both events and not just one of them. You need to establish the objective facts that happened without excluding any.

As far as I understand, this sort of thing happens in every branch of science but in other places there is this thing called pier review that grabs writers by their necks and politely asks them to correct it. History seems to be far more lenient on the subject. And that lenience is the thing I am against.

[TC Pilot]

Do you know what the word reliable means?

Yes. Are you going to answer my question?

It is not false at all. It is just that you seem to be missing the point. You call this "fallowing an agenda" as if it was always a contious act where it might well not be.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm going to take a stab here and guess "contious" is supposed to be "conscious," in which case I must confess it looks remarkably like you're backpeddaling now.

"Yes they will have to discard some information but they have to be extremely careful to ensure they do so based on the informations reliability and not personal preference. The moment historians start fallowing an agenda like glorifying this or vilifying that how can one trust anything they say any more? Are they than any different than the medical doctor who writes a fraudulent article about a new drug or the physicist who cheats in his numbers to get a theory through?"

If you simply weren't being clear, that's fine by me. But don't seriously expect me to buy that the above is supposed to even hint at an unconscious historical bias.

This is exatcly the kind of things historians need to avoid at all cost. If you are writing a historical document about WW2 than you need to mention both events and not just one of them.

Yes, that is presumably a case of politically-motivated bias. The sort of one-sidedness that might be lambasted by other historians in peer-review and historical journals. Though conflating public education textbooks with historical scholarship as a whole is misleading at best. Regardless, "bias" is applicable on a far broader scale. Check the running argument Stas Bush is is having over in "Did Hitler & The 3rd Reich Save Western Europe?" for an example of really bad historical bias. Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" is another biased work, which the author repeatedly admits to. No one (or rather, few) would seriously say that Zinn's as bad as Rezhun.

Ideally, yes, unbiased is best. But that's the ideal, not the reality. Some biases are worse than others.

You need to establish the objective facts that happened without excluding any.

As I've already pointed out, this is physically impossible. Just take thejester's example: a six-volume History of Australia, which took a quarter-century to be written. Again, you don't seem to quite grasp the sheer scope of information you're dealing with here.

[Zed]

Edit: delete this please.

[Purple]

Yes. Are you going to answer my question?

I already did. And it is you who have obviously failed to understand that answer.
I will break it down for you.

The reliability of a certain piece of information is a measure of how much that information can be trusted to be true.
And quite obviously (althou not for you it seems) the two things you mentioned (redundancy of sources and their readability) are an integral part of that.

To give an analogy, I said apple pie and you asked "And what about the apples".

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm going to take a stab here and guess "contious" is supposed to be "conscious," in which case I must confess it looks remarkably like you're backpeddaling now.

My point is that a lot of historical writings, tv programs and other publications are remarkably one sided. And what I am saying is that such publications should simply not be allowed to exist.

If you simply weren't being clear, that's fine by me. But don't seriously expect me to buy that the above is supposed to even hint at an unconscious historical bias.

It wasn't. Somewhere along the line I conceded to and accepted barnest2 said and simply incorporated it into my own argument.
Note how I newer actually claimed that what he said is false in any way.

Yes, that is presumably a case of politically-motivated bias. The sort of one-sidedness that might be lambasted by other historians in peer-review and historical journals. Though conflating public education textbooks with historical scholarship as a whole is misleading at best. Regardless, "bias" is applicable on a far broader scale. Check the running argument Stas Bush is is having over in "Did Hitler & The 3rd Reich Save Western Europe?" for an example of really bad historical bias. Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" is another biased work, which the author repeatedly admits to. No one (or rather, few) would seriously say that Zinn's as bad as Rezhun.

Its not enough to be done in the journals. It has to be rooted out completely. Writing a biased work should literally break and end your carrier as a historian.

Ideally, yes, unbiased is best. But that's the ideal, not the reality. Some biases are worse than others.

You set the bar much lower than I do. I set it at the ideal and punish everyone who deviates from it.
After all, that goes for all the other sciences so why not here? Sure it will be hard to do it but who said it should be easy?

You need to establish the objective facts that happened without excluding any.

As I've already pointed out, this is physically impossible. Just take thejester's example: a six-volume History of Australia, which took a quarter-century to be written. Again, you don't seem to quite grasp the sheer scope of information you're dealing with here.

If writing was supposed to be easy everyone would be doing it.

[Zed]

Do you honestly believe anyone can write a completely unbiased work?

[K. A. Pital]

It has to be rooted out completely. Writing a biased work should literally break and end your carrier as a historian.

This would terribly damage history as a field. Humans are bias-prone, and removing 90% of researchers due to bias would cripple research. Much more so than the bias.

[Purple]

It has to be rooted out completely. Writing a biased work should literally break and end your carrier as a historian.

This would terribly damage history as a field. Humans are bias-prone, and removing 90% of researchers due to bias would cripple research. Much more so than the bias.

If that is the price for doing things right than so be it.

[K. A. Pital]

It has to be rooted out completely. Writing a biased work should literally break and end your carrier as a historian.

This would terribly damage history as a field. Humans are bias-prone, and removing 90% of researchers due to bias would cripple research. Much more so than the bias.

If that is the price for doing things right than so be it.

You're willing to cripple science in the name of science? That's like destroying a monastery library during the Dark Ages because it's a library of a religious institution. But by doing so, you're not doing science a favor - you're damaging it. That's utter idiocy.

Besides, who is going to determine bias? Who watches the watchers? A board of historians? A proofreader who checks all the documents and facts? But what if all the facts are correct, and the work is mainly centered on their interpretation - not like pseudohistorian junk mentioned in this thread, but works which are biased yet factually correct? Is that a worthless work? How would you determine if there's a bias or not?

The whole idea is not only dumb and impossible, it's also dangerous for history as a field. Pseudohistory is far less damaging to academic history than your proposal, which will destroy academic history, but pseudohistory will flourish under "historical fantasy" titles.

[Eleas]

^ This.

I think the problem may be that Purple seems to view bias as either intentional promotion of an ideology or a lack of scientific rigour. Bias doesn't have to be any of those things. Witness for instance the Victorian scientists who, upon unearthing the bones of a homo erectus, dubbed the flint pieces as daggers and arrowheads and happily verified that yes, this was indisputably a male skeleton albeit with an oddly shaped pelvic region. These people weren't invariably sloppy or part of a conspiracy of ideologues; they simply couldn't envision how a skeleton carrying a child in a papoose could possibly have been a man. Such constructs then becomes axioms until one fine day they are revisited and backtracked, and only then -- if the will exists -- may changes be made.

In science as in so much else, there is noise and there is error. The trick is to reduce that noise and that error whenever it's found. If we refuse entry to any and all data that isn't perfect according to some arbitrary standard, that will destroy our ability to experiment. Without the option of posing questions and hypotheticals, hard answers will be in short supply.

[TC Pilot]

The reliability of a certain piece of information is a measure of how much that information can be trusted to be true.

So a source is reliable based on its reliability? You're just dodging the question.

There is no unfallible standard by which a source or piece of information is judged reliable or no. If you think otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.

And quite obviously (althou not for you it seems) the two things you mentioned (redundancy of sources and their readability) are an integral part of that.

See, that's not what I said. And it's quite frankly bizarre to me that you would consider either of those two particularly relevant to whether or not a source is reliable.

My point is that a lot of historical writings, tv programs and other publications are remarkably one sided. And what I am saying is that such publications should simply not be allowed to exist.

Fortunately we'll have you around to determine by fiat what is and isn't one-sided.

It wasn't. Somewhere along the line I conceded to and accepted barnest2 said and simply incorporated it into my own argument.

So you retroactively inserted an argument into a post I was responding to rebutt it? Classy.

Its not enough to be done in the journals. It has to be rooted out completely. Writing a biased work should literally break and end your carrier as a historian.

Then you're an idiot.

If writing was supposed to be easy everyone would be doing it.

Alright, you clearly have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

[Purple]

So a source is reliable based on its reliability? You're just dodging the question.

No I am not. I just plain don't know how to explain that which should be self evident. I admit that is simply a failing on my skill.

There is no unfallible standard by which a source or piece of information is judged reliable or no. If you think otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.

But you can always compare sources. That is as you said what they always do. The only thing I am advocating is that they should not be allowed to use personal preference as a unit of measure. The only methods they should be allowed to use are ones that have meaningful and measurable results that can be confirmed and checked. Like for example redundancy (as in how many other sources also say the same thing).

See, that's not what I said. And it's quite frankly bizarre to me that you would consider either of those two particularly relevant to whether or not a source is reliable.

So what you are saying is that you find the fallowing bizarre:
1. A source can be considered to be reliable if what is written in it is also confirmed by other sources (redundancy)
2. A source can be considered to be reliable if it is written in a easily understandable and scientifically speaking proper way

I find it bizarre that you don't consider those two, especially #1 to be important.

Fortunately we'll have you around to determine by fiat what is and isn't one-sided.

I don't pretend to be the one that should do it. That is for true experts that actually know history.
What I can and will do is advocate a certain type of methodology that I believe should be used.

[So you retroactively inserted an argument into a post I was responding to rebutt it? Classy.

Stick around, you ain't seen nothing yet. With me the rule goes: If I don't argue against it that means I agree with it.

Alright, you clearly have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Well alright, I concede that point to you.

To be honest, my rage is against the type of modern revisionist writing that tends to show who ever is writing it as paragons of morality and virtue. The stuff that gets fed to us on television and in schools rather than the stuff you see in science journals. I feel that what ever is published or filmed should undergo the same level of scrutiny as the things that go into the top level publications. And that the person who makes a movie for the history channel should be put through the same level of review as the guy who publishes for what ever the top level science magazine in the world is.

[Purple]

Forgot to add this bit:

In a fit of stupidity, I overextended it to other historical articles that has lead to well the above.

[thejester]

Getting rid of all bias is an impossible dream; even if you could remove the feelings of the historian, the limitations of a project (the way you shape the question, the scope of the research) and actual, physical limitations on the sources you use (not able to access them for whatever reason, don't speak the language) mean there's always going to be a 'slant' on the information, for want of a better term. This bias always exists but as people have articulated in this thread, it's something that historians are taught to minimise; you're supposed to take a measured stance, look at all the information available, support your arguments properly. At a more practical level, this is reflected in the fact that any sort of serious research project starts off with a survey of the existing secondary literature and an appreciation of the debates within the chosen area.

What I'm more interested in is the idea of a historian hitching himself to a cause, a point; as Manning Clark said, being motivated by the desire to 'say something' rather than a more abstract idea (or the desire to put food on the table). I think Akkhult got it right in regards to emotion being necessary to keep history relevant: this goes beyond writing well - putting a bit of spice in the language you use - but into the way your frame the topic. I fall back on Clark again (sorry I can't think of a more widely read example); his reimagining of the themes of Australian history at the time were radical, invigorating, and you can still sense that reading the first volume ~50 years after it was published. Plenty of critics riddled his books as being inaccurate or too 'literary', but it's almost impossible not to dismiss them as spoil sports even as you acknowledge the factual accuracy of their claims.

So I suppose it's a fine line; perhaps in the end it comes down to our biases.

[TC Pilot]

No I am not. I just plain don't know how to explain that which should be self evident. I admit that is simply a failing on my skill.

Yes, you were. I've had to post and repost my demand three times before you finally conceded that you can't communicate.

But you can always compare sources. That is as you said what they always do. The only thing I am advocating is that they should not be allowed to use personal preference as a unit of measure. The only methods they should be allowed to use are ones that have meaningful and measurable results that can be confirmed and checked. Like for example redundancy (as in how many other sources also say the same thing).

And I've repeatedly mocked this as rank naivety at best. What you're saying essentially amounts to "a system should be used which produces perfect results." They're vapid truisms, and, as Stas has pointed out, practically dangerous.

So what you are saying is that you find the fallowing bizarre:
1. A source can be considered to be reliable if what is written in it is also confirmed by other sources (redundancy)
2. A source can be considered to be reliable if it is written in a easily understandable and scientifically speaking proper way

I find it bizarre that you don't consider those two, especially #1 to be important.

You're either intentionally warping my words or have spectacularly misread what I actually said. My point of redundancy/readability was in reference to a historian deliberately excluding information from his piece (in response to your declaration that a historian should never exclude anything except on the basis of reliability), not as factors in determining a source's validity.

I don't pretend to be the one that should do it. That is for true experts that actually know history.

And if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that there are many, many, many, many things historians do not agree on. That's why history exists as an academic field.

To be honest, my rage is against the type of modern revisionist writing that tends to show who ever is writing it as paragons of morality and virtue. The stuff that gets fed to us on television and in schools rather than the stuff you see in science journals. I feel that what ever is published or filmed should undergo the same level of scrutiny as the things that go into the top level publications. And that the person who makes a movie for the history channel should be put through the same level of review as the guy who publishes for what ever the top level science magazine in the world is.

Those are problems stretching over the entirety of modern society, and certainly not restricted to the field of history alone. It's an issue that extends far beyond the scope of this thread or even this subforum.

What I'm more interested in is the idea of a historian hitching himself to a cause, a point; as Manning Clark said, being motivated by the desire to 'say something' rather than a more abstract idea (or the desire to put food on the table).

It is a fine line, indeed. One of the things that keeps history alive is the constant infusion of new blood - the constant interpretation and reinterpretation of the same information by new people. Historians generally bring a great interest in their subject with them. Considering how much effort goes into getting a Ph.D. for little practical gain, you have to. No one becomes a historian to make a living (though many do have to keep writing to keep a living; I know, for instance, some universities in the United States mandate timeframes in which a professor must publish some new piece of scholarly work). Tha also runs the risk of getting lost in your own enthusiasm. I remember a professor of mine, a professor of China and the Far East, was at a conference where a colleague gave a lecture on footbinding and how (I could be getting the details wrong here) these women would often get together to make their own shoes. This colleague then presented some tiny shoes she had made herself, and expressed how she understood now how empowering it must have felt for these women, which unsurprisingly left quite a few people there utterly dumbfounded.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. Basically, a passion for your subject can be a good thing, but be honest about it and keep it in perspective.

[K. A. Pital]

Like for example redundancy (as in how many other sources also say the same thing).

Redundancy is a piss-poor criterion for measuring historical sources. What are "sources"? If books by other historians are "sources", in this case a claim can be very "redundant", i.e. repeated a dozen times. However, it does not become true. Case in point - many World War II myths have spread into dozens if not hundreds of books. Like, for example, the myth of Stalin running off to his house after Germany attacked the USSR - it was disproven by the notes of his secretary who noted what guests and at what time visited Stalin in his work cabinet. And yet, this myth has spread from faulty memoirs and wishful fantasies of some authors to historical encyclopaedias and such. There are other examples of redundant claims which can be found in a dozen sources, but they're wrong.

Redundancy is bullshit, just as is the idea of bias-less perfection in history. This is not The System, and historians are not CLU.

[Akhlut]

To expand on jester's explantion of bias: it's not always trying to push some ideology, but different interpretations on what the evidence means. Jared Diamond, for instance, tries to explain the fall of many civilizations as human groups growing beyond carrying capacity of their local environment and completely wrecking their environment so they can't support the large scale civilization they once had.

His interpretation is contentious, to say the least. Many people specializing in the groups he talks about dispute his views about civilization collapses. No one here is making up data, but they don't agree about what it means.

Also, with history, we must remember a few things; we aren't dealing with physics or chemistry (at least, not directly), so we can't really run experiments and we don't always have the best data sets available. So, we have to make due with what we have and try to interpret it as best as possible. This means we have to use modern knowledge to try and separate the wheat from the chaff when using older sources. This means when Greek sources claim that Xerxes brought an army of 1 million people with him, we have to be very leery of that, because they would have drunk rivers dry and completely depopulated nearly every settlement along the way to feed themselves and their pack animals. So, we must downgrade it until we find a reasonable numeric range to work with.


Plus, as I said earlier, I think a little bias in interpretation can help make a work accessible and useful to people. Charles Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus is very well-cited and researched, but it also tries to make a point about how the peoples of the Americas were relevant and important on their own merits, just as much as the Chinese, the French, or the Ottomans, as well as showing us some things we could learn about how to have humans and nature coexist better.