Defining history is in fact intricate one, absolutely intricate! The concrete and professional meaning of history still isn’t found in the premises of historical authority. The number of professors and historians gave definitions of history depending upon their intellectual competence in line with their ideology, the kind of society they exposed and, and historians’ training and principles. It has thus become a mind-quarreling amongst historians with different perspectives. Yet, zero concrete conclusion was drawn among the historians about what really history means. Getting narrower, I am profound to examine the definition forwarded by Professor Edward Freeman which in fact talks about the past politics relating to the present as upcoming history. Freeman adheres that human history walks under the guise of politics. The present treasons are the upshot of historic movements. Thus, he regarded current politics as an evolving history. The book titled “What is History?” authored by E.H Carr chains my inspection on fore mentioned definition. Freeman drives history along the orbit of politics by giving political definition, sideling all other historical perspectives on economy, religion, and society too. His definition narrows down the range of history. While Carr, on the other hand, exhibits all aspects of history widening its scope. History is meant to be a solitary discipline not the twigs of other disciplines.
The political philosophy on history has merely made it dependent on the authority of political science. Whatsoever, it has its own impact on individuals and society. History as the science of politics has imparted to me a prevalent belief about the bond between politics and history. As when the grand tribulations and issues are settled by wars or worldwide affairs, they are supplemented to the enormous degree of human history just by accepting facts. Such an inclusive attitude toward history and politics has to envy me to travel into the studies of institutional history. Furthermore, it has been a good working theory for students to engage in the investigation of laws and institutions of the government.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Historians were driven out by the political aspects of history habitually during the nineteenth century when the whole world was timeless tackling the disputes arising from the political ideology of different lords. History during that period was typically dominated by politics in turn historians put pen to paper interpreting the events like wars, revolutions, and empires considering economy, religion, and society as only the exhibiting attributes of those events. Moreover, politics was placed at the apex to achieve other angles of the economy and social life. You say why is politics placed ahead? It is because the nation as a life is determined by politics and therefore, belief to direct the economy, society, and religious. They are consequently considered the bedrock of all authentic history. Hence, historians learn the social and economic condition of the people back 1910s to1920s based on First World War. I adhere to Freeman because as he said, history drives through three periods. For me, history is when the past defines the present, in turn becoming future history. For instance, when yesterday is today’s history why not today’s moments be my tomorrow’s history it’s beyond suspect for today to be yesterday for succeeding days. Thus, I consider every tick of my watch to be history for the next consecutive ticks. Carr’s definition of history, ‘Unending dialogue between past and present’ disclosed the same idea as Freeman of it being linked to past, present, and future. It is not the dull past that historians are studying rather it is a past that currently exists to preview the future.
With the constant journey of time, political aspects of history started to fade gradually while social-economic aspects on other faces accelerated their pace. The historians became more keenly interested to infer events with social and economic perspectives in scribbling history. Truth to unfold, I am pretty certain that Freeman had been exceptionally narrow-minded by making history the limb of political science. For that, I personally combat his points by focusing more on humans and society instead of politics. It is for sure that no political movements would take place if humans were not evolved because they are the most vital resources for any ideas to be put into action. For instance, without knowing the social background of the Bhutanese society how is it possible to learn about the political issues of Bhutan? This discloses the historians’ biased nature in the inscription of history. Had there been no existence of a society where would have politics found? Thus, No society means no politics. Carr argued in his book that Historians are dead if they happen to have no theory, the theory of history on economics, demography, military, and society to have better authenticity. Carr, he gives equal importance to all aspects to write history because including all aspects only means its authenticity is beyond doubt.
Every start is followed by an ending with certain outcomes. Having scrutinized the definition specified by Freeman I now feel that historians develop more affinity towards the environment they live in while writing history. I have learned that nineteenth-century historians are more of that kind giving political aspect. This means that they view history from a political perspective. Most importantly I have learned that true history is generated only when historians can interact with the primary sources. However, after reading Carr’s book I came to know that authenticity of the history is determined by objective writing since historical objectivity stands for what is true and real. Finally, I have significantly developed my skills in writing academic reflective essays making me rejoice in my intellectual growth. These skills would provide me with help in my upcoming literary works.
The meaning of history has been the room for historians to debate without ultimate answers. This happens only because historians were aggravated by the sort of society that prevailed during their time which varies their interpretation. For instance, nineteenth-century history has been more of politics while later historians developed an interest in social aspects transforming history into the branch of sociology. Carr has devoted the social-historical atmosphere to the selection and interpretation of precedent facts to have reliable history. The real coverage of history is so bulky that one cannot even imagine defining it. Consequently, the existence of a little prejudice on the historian’s part while interpreting is somehow possible. Whatever may be, they always look for the most reliable sources to have a partiality-free history.
Stuck on your essay?
