A collection of Historical debates

What is the difference between history and memory? –

The debate between memory and history has been a key part of academic history in recent years and was explored within our seminar. This debate consisted of, whether memory is both reliable and applicable to academic historiography. The definition of history being a recalling of past events using established fact to base a narrative off. The difference with memory however is although it creates a narrative, it is often influenced by emotions and experience rather than information that is regarded as fact. For example, a historical fact would be that slavery ended in the United States in eighteen sixty-five. A memory would be a recollection of these events from an ex-slave. Donna J Spindel examines the influence and reliability of memory in her work on Twentieth century slave narratives. She explores the issues of memory and how many of the interviews were ‘hopelessly impaired’ by their reliance upon undocumented information that was recalled during the interviewing process, this is a weak basis to produce a Historical narrative from. The established historiography often does not use sources involving memory as it can often be influenced by outside factors. Collective or community memory is one such criticism (that we debated within our seminar) on the reliability of information produced by memory as information is often passed down and retold as a narrative loosing much of its integrity as a reliable source. The augmentation of memory from external factors such as community input has been the topic of many psychological trials since the late twentieth century. One such study, produced by Elizabeth F. Loftus, shows that memories can easily be created and implanted, these false or ‘pseudo memories’ justify Historian’s reluctance to accept memory as a valid source within their study of history as it shows how susceptible memory is to external influences, this communication of misinformation therefore shows that memory is not an entirely reliable source of data thus explaining why unlike history, it is not as widely used as a basis of Historical academia.

The study of history on the other hand is grounded within the discovery and exploration of the past through use of sources that can be ratified and supported by various other forms of evidence, as Robert Wolff (one of the sources that was set for key reading) states within his work on the memory and history debate ‘memory is passed down through generations; history is revised’

this statement by Wolff again strengthens the debate that memory differs from history as it is used to provide narratives within a community, helping to ‘sustain traditions and rituals’. History on the other hand, is shown within Wolff’s work as being a revised academic study of information based upon dates and records, a strong juxtaposition to memory. For example, within our seminar, we used the example of Christmas to discuss how traditions are built upon and changed by various individual experience, this differs from history as it is based upon established fact, the example we used was that we can date a lot of Christmas traditions back to the Victorian period. How society has changed these traditions to suit personal experiences of Christmas have changed over time through community collectiveness. The revision of information provided by sources therefore allows Historians to create narratives based upon their factual understanding of the past.

There are also issues with the reliance on history to create historiography. As Wolf examines through his research on the rise of digital influences on the creation of History, any individual can take history and claim to be a Historian now due to readily accessible information, the rise of History from Below can also be accredited to this as it removed the stigmatisation that History can only be produced by academics for academics. Wolf’s example is of an individual who claims, ‘that slaveholders “treated their slaves kindly”’ this shows how although history can be seen as a definite fact, interpretations can always differ, showing that the use of history in creating historiography must be used and interpreted appropriately as many individuals can be selective with their sources, so like the use of memory, the use of history is often open to issues of reliability.

To summarise, the differences between history and memory come from their application and acceptance within the creation of historiography, although both sources of information are reliant upon past events, they differ through both their reliability and application to the overall Historical narrative that is produced through academia. The usage of memory on one hand is vital for understanding community and is an emotive recollection of past events, this falls short in its application to Historical academia however as its reliability is questionable due to the existence of pseudo memories and community influence upon it. The use of history in the creation of historiography on the other hand is more widely used due to an abundance of sources that are available that are often refined and checked for inconsistencies, unlike memory. However, it must be kept in mind that history, like memory it’s also subjective and therefore is prone to confirmation bias, something which is clear in the example that Wolf used within his work. Therefore, there are clear differences between history and memory, these differences however do not discredit their use in the creation of historiography if their limitations are understood.

In what ways can the writing of history be a political act? –

During our seminar discussion, we debated how the writing and creation of History can be considered a political act, our group concluded that the creation of history can be political as every author has their own goals and audience in mind when creating their work. This assumption can be applied to a variety of disciplines ranging from art, literature, and history. We can observe this politicisation in many forms throughout modern adaptations of history. For example, if we consider the decolonisation of history and the UK’s recent attempts to decolonise the school curriculum, we see that most works within this field are a political statement at the rejection of eurocentrism in our understanding of the past. This acceptance of different views within the study of history was heightened by black rights movements (2020) in recent years and the subsequent need to include marginalised voices within history as shown in the call to “decolonise” history. Traditional history has always focused upon the white ruling class and was written in such a way that the history is not relatable in a modern multicultural society. We can state therefore that the politicisation of academic history has come from a need to identify more closely with the subject, authors, and historians alike have used these advances as a more tolerant and open society to review injustices of the past based upon social hierarchies that were not discussed under traditional history.

We must look further at the motivations of these historians to explore how history can be used as a political tool. If we take note from an interview with author Howard Zinn, we see that although he is a historian, he uses his work to produce social commentary ‘I wanted my writings of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle’

this form of commentary within his work is a political act, as he is directly addressing political debates and as such his work is influenced by contemporary issues. One of the assigned readings for the seminar, The Editorial Collective, supports the notion that history should represent social struggle ‘class relations and politics, sex divisions and marriage, family, school and home’ all these areas are still applicable to struggles faced by people in the contemporary age, showing that the creation of historical narratives can and should be both representative of contemporary and past issues. An understanding of the past allows for greater consideration and acceptance of contemporary social movements within the modern age. This was discussed on length throughout our seminar as we felt it was imperative that the past should be understood to give context to current political and social actions. For example, if it were not for the social justice movements of the nineteen-sixties, the current LGBTQ+ community would not be where it is today, greater understanding of what has become before allows social injustices still present within society to be fought with the same ferocity and passion as they were in years prior.

History from Below therefore plays a key role in the politicisation of history, as unlike traditional history it gives importance to underrepresented groups within society such as the working class, women, racial minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+. Although according to Jim Sharpe’s work on History from Below, it is hard to distinguish who is an ‘ordinary’ person. We felt as a group that an ordinary individual should be identified as someone who does not fit into the category of a traditional elite. History from Below therefore allows for greater politicisation of history as it reveals narratives that often are overlooked when evaluating the current accepted historiography. The revisionist view of post-modernism also helps this. History is considered a political act as it opens debate for the inclusion of various social groups that have previously gone unrepresented within the field of history.

I therefore feel that the writing and creation of history is a political act as it allows for the greater inclusion of underrepresented groups within society. History also allows us to learn from the injustices of the past to prevent them from happening again, preventing the wrong people from obtaining political power that had already abused their power in the past. It also allows for contemporary social commentary as well as the ability to spot injustices performed by the current establishment. This is all gained from a greater understanding of the past. Therefore, the creation and writing of history is a political act as it allows for a greater understanding of contemporary society by comparing it to the past, allowing us to observe just how far we have progressed as a society during that period along with allowing for greater representation of groups that had previously been underrepresented in modern culture, an issue that has become ever more apparent in recent years.

What does it mean to decolonise history?

The decolonisation of history can be defined as the removal of western centric values from the established historiography, this can be achieved by including the voices of marginalised members of society that had recently gone underrepresented within the field of academic history. We discussed on length within our seminar on how this can be achieved and what it really means to decolonise history. One student suggested that there is a distinction between the study of decolonisation, which occurred during the latter half of the twentieth century, and the process of decolonisation within the study of history. This student continued to argue that it was therefore harmful to name the removal of eurocentrism from the historiography so similarly to the study of the downfall of empires. This argument produced by the student is reflective of an essential reading we were assigned, Amanda Behm et al, suggests and that the goal of decolonising history must see ‘race as a key problem’ rather than empire as it plays a ‘less important role’. Within our seminar it was defined as an inclusion of race and different culture rather than basing the movement upon the preloaded term of decolonisation. The work of Daniel Woolf was also discussed within the seminar, it was used as a supporting source for this argument ‘history builds on European and especially Germanic academic practice which has ruled the past’ as shown within Woolf’s work, it is clear that up until recent, the academic study of history has been oversaturated by the stories and triumphs of white Europeans, and as such is should be addressed in order to create greater inclusivity within the field.

As a group we decided that to decolonise history, all access to history must be addressed, the most notable example is the way in which history is studied and produced at a university standard. The removal of western centric values within the teaching of university has been particularly successful, if we look at student led protests such as ‘Rhodes must fall’

and ‘Mariya Hussain’s Why is my curriculum so white?’ we see it is essential to address the decolonisation of history at university level for two reasons, one because it is more representative of those who choose to study the subject, allowing them to easily relate and produce more engaging History. The second reason being that universities and graduate research lead to the production of academic History which is in turn handed down to lower-level institutions. Therefore, the work that universities produce directly impacts how these lower-level institutions understand and teach History. The government is currently divided on whether to further decolonise the national curriculum. School minister Nick Gibb for example, feels that the study of history should not be ‘tailored to one particular group’ this is an example of how traditional history has greatly limited the progress of inclusivity within the field of History. Gibb’s reluctance to accept there is more to history than ‘dead white men’ shows the failings of how history has been taught over the past century. I feel therefore that the ignorance created by the exclusion of various voices within our established historiography directly affect decision making on inclusivity in other aspects of life including government.

Another point raised within our seminar is the ease in which the public have access to this inclusivity. The example I consider most effective are museum exhibits, the approach of History from Below has already transformed how the public relate to the historical narratives shown to them. What is lacking from public access to history is the inclusion of different cultures and voices. This does not mean however that all museums focus on western triumphs, both the Brisbane and Queensland Museums in Australia have a heavy focus on Aboriginal culture and history, the Queensland Museum website states ‘Cultures and Histories research play a key role in fostering respect and recognition of Aboriginal people in the broader Queensland community’. Aboriginal history is often underrepresented when discussing the colonisation of Australia. I have personally been to this exhibit and feel that public events such as this is the key to broadening the reach of the decolonisation of history, as it allows the public who may not be interested in the academic study of History to engage with marginalised narratives without them needing to understand the benefits that it brings. These events are important as they highlight and break down intolerances that remain in society due to only viewing our society from a Eurocentric lens. In the case of Australia and their relationship with the Aboriginal people, projects of cultural importance such as the one described previously have enriched public understanding of these people and has allowed them to become better accepted within the public eye and not to be seen as inferior in a predominantly white nation.

In summary, to decolonise history is to remove the western centric focus that has dominated the traditionalist view of history for the past few centuries. It is beneficial to include these marginal voices to both encourage wider engagement from marginalised persons within our own society as well as enriching our current understanding of history as academics. Race, along with class, gender and sexuality is all relevant when discussing narratives within history, just as History from Below has allowed for class, gender, and sexuality to rise to significance so will the decolonisation of history. It is imperative therefore that a greater effort is made to hear marginalised voices across the national curriculum along with the inclusion of various underrepresented cultures within the public sphere. I feel that the acceptance of marginalised cultures within history will have a positive effect on how multiculturalism is regarded in society and thus will create greater equality. Therefore, to decolonise history is to allow for greater inclusion within the countless historical narratives available to us.

Overall, I feel that this module and the seminars within it have broadened my approach to History in ways that I had not considered before, and I hope the above responses reflect this. As a joint honours’ student, it has allowed me to apply my knowledge of history more readily to my work as a political scientist, strengthening my view of history being a political act. I hope to implement what I have learnt this semester to my future projects and further career as a historian.

Bibliography -

Akhter, Shahnaz, 3 November 2020. ‘Decolonising the School Curriculum. UK Parliament Week 2020’ PSA Blog, https://www.psa.ac.uk/psa/news/decolonising-school-curriculum-uk-parliament-week-2020 .

Behm, Amanda, Christienna Fryar, Emma Hunter, Elizabeth Leake, Su Lin Lewis, Sarah Miller-Davenport, eds. Decolonizing History: Enquiry and Practice, History Workshop Journal (2020). Accessed 13 December 2021. https://academic.oup.com/hwj/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/hwj/dbz052/5739463?redirectedFrom=fulltext .

Editorial Collective, ‘Editorials’, History Workshop Journal. 1 (1976) 1: Accessed 8 December 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/1.1.1

‘History as a political act’, last modified December 20, 1998. https://www.howardzinn.org/history-as-a-political-act/.

8

Kansteiner, ‘Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory Studies’. History and Theory. 41 (2002): 179–197. Accessed 6 December 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3590762?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Wulf+Kansteiner%2C+%27Finding+Meaning+in+Memory&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DWulf%2BKansteiner%252C%2B%2527Finding%2BMeaning%2Bin%2BMemory%2B%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A984e239a2292af3f7fa39e08fef2eebd&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Loftus, Elizabeth F, ‘Creating False Memories’. Scientific American. 277 (1997) 70–75: Accessed 7 December 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24995913?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Loftus+false+memory&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DLoftus%2Bfalse%2Bmemory%2B%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ab274b10949abe4b6850b303c868de2e5&seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents

Queensland Museum ‘Cultures and History Collection’. 2020. accessed 10 December 2021. Available at: https://www.qm.qld.gov.au/Explore/Collections/Cultures+and+Histories+Collections .

Sharpe, Jim. ‘History from Below’ in Peter Burke (ed.) New Perspectives on History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Spindel, Donna J, ‘Assessing Memory: Twentieth-Century Slave Narratives Reconsidered’. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 27 (1996): 247–261. Accessed 6 December 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/205156?casa_token=nTgYknQPGZkAAAAA%3ArhGToE4jb3v-x5-hPthGhW1Mh-yKadfXIorgZKXIb4U86ID9N78Ji7gvUQpN2P3emXuJ5TtOXnmSdcLeD_rBT_4MpvuqDev0prN1wHdupex9XiXUNVxY&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents .

Weale, Sally, ‘School minister rebuffs calls to decolonise English curriculum’ The Guardian, 21 July 2021. Accessed 10 December 2021 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jul/21/schools-minister-rebuffs-calls-to-decolonise-english-curriculum .

Wolff, Robert S. ‘The Historian’s Craft, Popular Memory, and Wikipedia’, in Writing History in the Digital Age, eds. Jack Dougherty, Kristen Nawrotzki. Michigan: Digital culture books, 2013.

9

Woolf, Daniel. A Concise History of History: Global Historiography from Antiquity to the Present. England: Cambridge University Press,2019.