In Defence of History

Product Information

I kept wanting him to be more precise on just what constitutes a 'fact' and how 'evidence' is evaluated.

His many books include The Coming of the Third Reich (2003), The Third Reich in Power (2005) and The Third Reich at War (2008), as well as a collection of essays, The Third Reich in History and Memory (2015). Welch Medal of the American Association for the History of Medicine, and the Medal for Arts and Sciences of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. The argument, while sometimes a bit "stodgy" attempts to be even-handed in describing elements of postmodernism that have improved historical writing while also criticizing what Evans dubs "extreme relativism".Peralihan medan makna yang telah berlaku samada intra-teks mahupun ekstra-teks, dari satu zaman ke zaman yang lain, telah menyebabkan penafsiran sang sejarahwan menjadi tidak lebih daripada agak-agakan. Antara caranya adalah dengan meneliti ribuan dokumen sejarah yang menggunapakai istilah-istilah tersebut dan menangkap nuansa-nuansa berbeza yang dibangkitkannya.

Namun penulis tetap sahaja berjaya mempermasalahkan isu-isu yang menarik dan tidak kurang penting: Apakah sejarah akan berhenti ditulis?His many awards and distinctions include the British Academy Leverhulme Medal and Prize, the Norton Medlicott Medal of the Historical Association, the William H.

There are only so many facts left behind by history, and for the rest, the historians have to fill in the gaps with their best judgment.He does see good things in it, including an interest in the biographies of completely obscure individuals to illuminate a period of history (as in Simon Schama's book on the French Revolution, Citizens), and a renewed emphasis on good writing as a virtue. For me it also succeeds in its argument that we can know about the past and we can find meaning in the past. They are constructed: in the documents attesting to the occurrence of events, by interested parties commenting on the events or the documents, and by historians interested in giving a true account of what really happened in the past and distinguishing it from what may appear to have happened. Tiada sejarahwan yang mendakwa versi sejarahnya adalah yang paling benar sepertimana tiada pembaca yang begitu goblok mempercayai setiap untaian kata penulisan sejarah yang dibacanya. The story is one of the progress of historical study and a hope that the brighter spots of post-modernism can also add to an enriched discipline.

Written at the height of what was perceived as an “onslaught of postmodernism” , Evans’ book ‘In Defence of History’ seeks to restate the case for a version of historical writing that is grounded in an empirical understanding of the discipline. Pemantapan susulan aspek teori di dalam bidang historiografi sepertin yang dilaksanakan oleh Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903) yang membezakan antara sumber primer dan sumber sekunder telah mewujudkan mantera baru di dalam bidang penulisan sejarah: kumpul bahan-bahan berkaitan, disusuli dengan aksi pengkritikan sumber disamping menentu-sahkan keaslian artifak – inilah batu-batu asas yang harus disantuni mana-mana proses penulisan sejarah. But when postmodernism arrived on the scene some time ago, the cry to make history more like literature was a reaction to history’s tendency at the time to avoid narrative and stick to themes. The copyright to all contents of this site is held either by Granta or by the individual authors, and none of the material may be used elsewhere without written permission. On erinevate vaadete tutvustamisel ka ysna mõõdukas: ehkki raamat on suunatud eeskätt vastama postmodernistlike mõtlejate kriitikat (eelkõige, et objektiivset ajalootõde pole), ei ründa Evans neid mõõdutundetult (viitab, et mitmed nende toodud uuendused on olnud ka kasulikud) ega ripsuta yleliia tiiba ka hyperempiirilisust võimalikuks pidavate konservatiividega (ehkki sedastab, et ajaloolise tõe – olgu see pealegi osaline või subjektiivsusest teatvalt mõjutet – leidmine on õigete meetoditega võimalik).I tend to follow Evans in this, but I must admit that his presentation of the postmodernists regularly is very caricatured (although he admits postmodernists also have added valuable new insights), and his statements sometimes are worded rather vaguely.