What perspective? (1 Viewer)

[PhiL]

What perspective did you say the sources was. I said he was kinda relativist cause he says he is concerned with the popularisation of history (how its made for the public and increasingly changed to suit their needs), but also he wanted some imagination at the same time - the metanarrative or watever. Also he was concerned with some of the "myth-making" of pomo's and wanted to return to the "old" history (ididnt really know what he meant by old history tho)

 

[Acid]

I said that it was critical of modern history, saying that it was moving away from searching for the truth and that there was a need to go back to the ways of old, or the 'meta-narrative' (e.g. heroditus). But I criticised it saying that what was happening was the opposite by comparing heroditus and marx/ranke, etc... blah

 

[LadyBec]

i didn't really say anything about it's perspective...oops oh well

 

[pukkatukka]

I said that it was critical of modern history, saying that it was moving away from searching for the truth and that there was a need to go back to the ways of old, or the 'meta-narrative' (e.g. heroditus). But I criticised it saying that what was happening was the opposite by comparing heroditus and marx/ranke, etc... blah

me too :uhhuh:

 

[*rinney*]

yeah i said it was postmodernist perspective because they believe theres no such thing as historical fact and the article talked about how people have used history to suit themselves and their own purposes ie manipulated it so the facts and what actually occurred is no longer cared about.... blah blah but then that source can be interpreted in many different ways...

 

[boxheadman]

yea, I said it was all antiquated and empiricist. I dunno, it seemed to contradict itself in this respect to me. WAY too shot tho, gotta say that. and I found it hard to link ancient historians to. I basically concentrated on how the guy(s) were paying out modern forms on history and that postmodernism has to say about this.

 

[trekkie]

I interpreted it as being critical of the change in historiography, it seems to have been critical of the fact that we've moved away from academic empirical history and the meta narrative and the way that these have been written and the move to more popular and political versions of history. I worked in Windschuttle, the stuff we did about the ANZAC myth and popular history, herodotus (for the idea of the decline of the meta narrative), Anne Summers and new forms of historical interpretation and representation such as historical reenactments.

 

[bahodl]

i basically interpreted it similarly - it notes that the community still needs to experience "the old role of history" ie metanarrative nationalistic etc etc and that history today has become too marginalised and academic and when its shown to the public it is imposed on them or whatever - meh i cant remember something about the difference between the contexts in which history is written accounting for the changes of approach