Great video - Dr. Bowles has the gift ion making things clear - the hallmark of a great teacher. Now I understand why Historiography is a core class in my Masters program. THX. Dr. Bowles.
I appreciate all of the positive comments and I am glad the video is a useful description of historiography. Feel free to share in your classrooms or with other students.
That is really neat. Historiography is basically the history of history itself. What a fascinating concept to ponder. Say, what if I wanted to write History books myself? Do I actually need a Ph.d in the subject?
Thanks Mark. I am in a History Graduate program and actually had never had a Historiography course. I was taken in due to my other coursework. I ask that "What does that mean?" all the time...your lecture has helped.
I enjoyed the video very much, Dr. Bowles. You made the video very informative but also fun for your students to view! Thanks for posting this! I am anxious to read some of your books that you have written over the years.
Thank you for you insights presented and examples. I had about two previous classes which the syllabus included an end term paper as a historiography. To me the explanations or clarifications of the historiography examples in the syllabus seemed vague. Not any more.
Thanks for this video. I'm required to do a historiography paper on a historian (I chose Edward Gibbon). We are also required to look at 2 other historians who have responded to Gibbon. I'm not clear how I should go about. Can anyone please help?
I'm going to tackle this one. Yes and no. Since Historiography as Dr. Bowles explained is the analysis of the scholars writings in their particular context, to some extent the "dramatization" as you put it is somewhat valuable because it represents a small portion of current thought when it comes to history. On the other hand, historiography is also an evaluation of sources, what is credible and what is not. While Bill O'Rielly's (and others of his...status, left and right) works may be entertaining, I would question the level of bias and sources used in his books. I hope I answered the question effectively.
Is this view, that we can only study history from our own time and place, built on Derridas philosophical deconstructinism? I think he said we cant study any texts, only from our own time and place, not the authors time and place.
ok thank you very much ,your video gives an important knowledge for historians and also for others. Therefore as i think you have to add more videos if its possible for you
Part of the problem of your thesis particularly when you mention the American Civil War analogy is an assumption that ALL historians writing at the time or at least contemporaneously, would view the American Civil War identically and that to me would be the main modifier of approaches to same. Clearly this is not true about any historical event. Historians writing at the time about any historical event are as likely to differ in interpretation as those writing from another and later time. Also there is an inability to acknowledge obvious historical prejudices as when Ken Burns (a director who I admire) insensitively does a history of World War II as if it began from the invasion of Pearl Harbor and arbitrarily ignores the reality that World War II didn't begin in 1941 but in 1939 with Hitler's invasion of Poland and the involvement of Europe, England, New Zealand and my country, Australia in a conflict which the US came late to (as they did in WWI)
Of course no assumption was made that all historians of any time period view a single event the same way. My video was merely a simplified example of the meaning and approach of historiography. However, there are trends and "schools of thought" that emerge and fade away over time. This is not "my thesis," but a description of a vital component of the profession of history.
part of the problem of your thesis particularly when you mention the American Civil War analogy is an assumption that ALL historians writing at the time or at least contemporaneously, would view the American Civil War identically and that to me would be the main modifier of approaches to same. Clearly this is not true about any historical event. Historians writing at the time about any historical event are as likely to differ in interpretation as those writing from another and later time. Also there is an inability to acknowledge obvious historical prejudices as when Ken Burns (a director who I admire) insensitively does a history of World War II as if it began from the invasion of Pearl Harbor and arbitrarily ignores the reality that World War II didn't begin in 1941 but in 1939 with Hitler's invasion of Poland and the involvement of Europe, England, New Zealand and my country, Australia in a conflict which the US came late to (as they did in WWI)
