| Historiography
as defined by the Random House Dictionary of the English
Language includes all of the following:
"the body of literature dealing with historical
matters; the body of techniques, theories, and principles
of historical research and presentation, and methods
of historical scholarship; the narrative presentation
of history based on a critical examination, evaluation,
and selection of material from primary and secondary
sources and subject to scholarly criteria."
( note 1)
This sounds suspiciously like the application and methodology
we as genealogists are expected to adhere to in our own
research and writing, whether we plan to publish or not.
One is, therefore, forced to recognize that genealogists
are also historians, although historians are not necessarily
genealogists.
As genealogists and historians, we occasionally need
to take a step back, look at what our craft entails, what
is expected of us, and what we sometimes expect of others.
It is not a new idea that we should continue to study
the "history of history." Sometimes, however, we need
to be reminded.
Imminent historian, Charles A. Beard, wrote in 1934:
". . . historians recognize . . . the obvious, long known
. . . that any written history inevitably reflects the
thought of the author in his time and cultural setting.
. . Has it not been said for a century or more that
each historian who writes a history is a product
of his age,
and . . . his work reflects the spirit of the times,
of a nation, race, group, class, or section. . .
Every student of history knows that his colleagues have
been influenced in their selection and ordering of materials
by their biases, prejudices, beliefs, affections, general
upbringing, and experience. . . the selection and arrangement
of fact - a combined and complex intellectual operation
- is an act of choice, conviction, and interpretation
respecting values. . . an act of thought." (
note 2)
As genealogical researchers, we pull our clues, facts,
and insights from an enormous variety of disciplines.
Nothing is beyond our reach in the quest to prove that
one bit of information correct or not, or to link one
person to another. We make use of the work of earlier
generations of genealogists, historians, anthropologists,
geographers, and a host of other disciplines. We are not
limited by time frame, national or international boundaries,
or language barriers. We are a determined group, developing
and honing the skills necessary to solve the problems
that we find along the way, and consistently looking to
meet the next challenge.
Occasionally, however, we are prone to place our own
values and biases on the work that has gone before. Rather
than judging an earlier work on its value and merits for
the time in which it was written, which we should do,
we sometimes project our own feelings of what is "politically
correct" in our time. This error on our part does a disservice
to the author in question, as well as any work of our
own which may come about as a result of these prejudices.
Historian and Librarian of Congress Emeritus, Daniel
J. Boorstin, has written that ". . . We are a people haunted
by all past injustices and fears of future injustice.
. . overwhelmed by issues of conscience. . . How can we
. . . arouse public outrage to right ancient wrongs that
violate our civic conscience. . . "( note
3)
Would we as genealogists and historians want our work
judged in this way one hundred years from now? I think
not. |
| Notes:
1) Jess Stein, editor in chief, The Random House Dictionary
of the English Language, unabridged edition (New York:
Random House, 1966), 674.
2) Charles A. Beard, "Written History
as an Act of Faith," The American Historical Review
XXXIX (January 1934): 219-229.
3) Daniel J. Boorstin, "Our Conscience-Wracked
Nation" in Cleopatra's Nose: Essays on the Unexpected
(New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 54. |
