|
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.
|
