Core: Manipulate your knowledge Part 1

History is a disciplined process of (a)   into the past that helps to explain how people, events, and forces from the past have shaped our world.

Answer explanation

Remember: History derives from the Greek word "historia". It meant inquiry. Did Herodotus -the -Greek intentionally fib, in the interests of nationalism? Possible.

Von Ranke is the father of modern academic history. Match the fact to the image.

• One of his works...

• 
• Corroborated, referenced research

• 
• Used primary, archival sources.

• 
• Objective: what actually happened.

• 
• Biased: Prussian nationalist & Lutheran

• 

What is NOT a problem with the academic approach?

• Historians cannot achieve objectivity.

• Privileging and selecting sources is problematic

• The focus is often narrow: political, diplomatic and military history

• It has a clear, disciplined methodology

Link the Historian to the criticism of academic history

• Annales School:

  Bloch, Febvre

• Facts not not speak for themselves. They speak only when historians call on them.

• post structuralist Simon Schama

• It either ignores or patronises the working class.

• Post Modernist

  Hayden White

• A strictly academic approach does not fire the imagination

• Marxist Historians

  Hobsbawm, EP Thompson

• The focus is too narrow. History should be interdisciplinary

• Positivist EH Carr
  (a turncoat!!)

• Discipline is not enough. History is a linguistic construct. it is story - a narrative.

Let's summarise. Academic history expounded as by Von ​ (a)   , is characterized by its clear ​ (b)   and ​ the (c)   use of primary sources. Von Ranke's "History of the Latin and ​ (d)   People" showcased his ​ (e)   approach. ​ ​

• Ranke
• methodology
• referenced
• Teutonic
• empirical

In contrast to academic history, what are some of the characteristics of a popular history?

• It is engaging

• Often multimodal: it encompasses films, websites and games

• it is exclusively written by trained historians.

• May seek to raise a new perspective or argument.

Let's look at specific examples of POPULAR history for the Anzac Case study. Match them up!

• Peter Fitzsimmons:
  Monash's Masterpiece

• 
• John Monash Centre - France & App

• 
• Australian War Memorial: Search online

• 
• Film: Peter Weir's "Gallipoli"

• 
• School resources: DVA & ABC interactive

• 

What does Jo Fitzsimmons ("Consuming Anzac") claim?

• The Anzacs have been packaged for sale, especially since the legislation of 1921.

• The Anzacs have been romanticised and sanitised.

• The imaging has changed to meet market expectations: from fierce warriors to reluctant heroes

• Woolworths should make even more ads.

Match the Anzac historian to the specific historiographical problem.

• Jo Hawkins,

  Consuming Anzac

• Popular history sentimentalises and over- simplifies Anzacs.

• Joy Damousi in Lake & Reynolds book.

• We fund a legend and ignore the present problems (PTSD etc)

• Lake &Reynolds What's wrong with Anzac

• Popular history conflates history and commemoration. We stop critiquing.

• Lake &Reynolds (What's wrong with Anzac)

• The past is packaged for the values of its audience: e.g. today more women, cultural diversity.

• John Brown, Anzac's long shadow.

• Popular history is selective and distorts the past

Let's go back to the broader issues. Where did footnotes REALLY matter?

• In Holocaust denial. Prof Evans used Irving's references to prove he lied.

• In some of Simon Schama's works. A lack of footnotes is a common complaint.

• In your Extension history essays!