Master Gopher
Member
Some things in my case study are very relevant to 'What is History' (obviously, the one is based on the other, so the same ideas are being addressed) - would it be ok to use quotes from a particular historian (eg Bassnett writing about Elizabeth I) to supplement (not replace) other historians?
For example: "History is what you can remember" (Sellar & Yeatman in 1066 And All That) - to most people, history is something we know about from TV and movies, something you can look up in a book, but not an area fraught with debate and ideological conflict; it consists of dates, events, individuals, groups like "the Germans" "the Mexicans".
And Bassnett says: "...has come to symbolise Elizabeth for millions of people who may never have actually read one of the many books about her." - that is, popular portrayals are history to most people - they'll remember an image of Elizabeth from TV without realising that that image - that common view held by some populist historians - is actually debated by other historians.
Is this a good or bad idea? Part of me thinks that solid examples are good, and that it is good to back up abstract talk about popular portrayals, relativism, etc with solid examples from historians, not just quotes from historiographers. But then again, is this too tangential, are we supposed to concentrate on more general stuff about what history is and does?
Thanks in advance
For example: "History is what you can remember" (Sellar & Yeatman in 1066 And All That) - to most people, history is something we know about from TV and movies, something you can look up in a book, but not an area fraught with debate and ideological conflict; it consists of dates, events, individuals, groups like "the Germans" "the Mexicans".
And Bassnett says: "...has come to symbolise Elizabeth for millions of people who may never have actually read one of the many books about her." - that is, popular portrayals are history to most people - they'll remember an image of Elizabeth from TV without realising that that image - that common view held by some populist historians - is actually debated by other historians.
Is this a good or bad idea? Part of me thinks that solid examples are good, and that it is good to back up abstract talk about popular portrayals, relativism, etc with solid examples from historians, not just quotes from historiographers. But then again, is this too tangential, are we supposed to concentrate on more general stuff about what history is and does?
Thanks in advance