Of Histories and Historians (reflection from reading 1)

"The relation between the historian and his facts is one of equality, of give-and-take." - E.M. Carr (1963)

I find it apt that Carr chooses to address the question "What is History?" by pronouncing the importance of the historian. Carr helps us identify the relation between "The Historian and His Facts” through a number of conflicts that history itself is faced with. I personally feel that an ideal kind of history - a history that can judge for itself what it must talk about all the while being capable of catering to the varied needs of readers hundreds of years into the future - could work only if the destiny of the world was predetermined (which is probably why we like to think that the "universal histories" of the past have conveniently led up to the present in the most fitting way).

But as I have come to understand it, history cannot be that way because of the nature of humankind. The process of understanding a piece of history is dotted with many human interactions. First, there is the object/occurrence itself, existing freely in what will soon be the past. Then comes the observer of this object/occurrence. Perceiving the object/occurrence through a finite yet unique list of human senses, tensions and moral filters, this observer chooses to record the object/occurrence (which now becomes a subject). Then come a long list of people who study this subject and retell it to hundreds of others like a game of Chinese whispers. Carr also points out how language shapes the interpretation of history, how "the historian is obliged to choose: the use of language forbids him to be neutral".

So it is only natural that history remains ever changing and ever changed. And reading a history without understanding where the historian comes from would be like acquiring half-knowledge. Having said that, it makes sense to me that Carr would write this essay the way he writes it, in 1963, before the Internet came into common existence. If through all the filters of human perception and choice, history is only told by the victor, by the educated caste, by the favoured historian, it can't be fair. In today's world, where personal expression through photographs, videos, sound recordings, blogs, etc. is being encouraged, I see the ground for a freer kind of history-writing. The Internet has changed the way in which we regard the word "publishing". This new kind of history, which is already being written and read (like now, for example), is not a mindless accumulation of facts like the works of pre-philosophic historians. Instead, in these days of "accelerating progress", it helps to capture the vast and unexplained experiences of human existence before they move onto something better, faster and/or eco-friendly (haha). The way I see it, in the new kind of history-making, everyone is given the opportunity, if not audience, to record and share their lives. It means that the purpose of history - to give humans the hope to be remembered - is served.

- Sindhu Thirumalaisamy (FST201)