11-10-2012, 12:53 PM
Al-muell Wrote:I remember that on one of the first classes on "Introduction to the historical research" course our professor stated that in fact, a historian does not reconstruct the past events, but "constructs events in the past". I can't say I fully agree with that statement, but I can see his point. What we don't know, we have to deduct from the available sources. Deduction is nothing else than guessing the unknown from the data available.
Yes, I frequently said much the same thing when I taught the same course at our university. Absent a time machine, we cannot fully know the past, and probably not even then (ask an anthropologist). But (and this was in South Carolina) the real challenge was getting through to the students the prodound difference between a "guess (interpretation)" based on evidence and fact and a "guess (lie)" based on faith and what they wanted to be true. For example, most of the white students wanted to believe that slaves were happy under slavery, and so they conjured sources to buttress their longings. Wishing to know the reasons for the award of any labor order is common (and I have many guests who would love to have their history revealed) but our craving shouldn't lead us to assume that (1) because it was awarded on a given date and (2) because someone located one of the lists of awards on that date that (3) he/she must somehow be on that list. The logical and historical dangers are legion.
We should beware the historical equivalent of "creation science".
I have the same problem with collectors of WWI-era German groups: (1) you have a group of medals, (2) you conduct some very difficult research (and that amount of effort couldn't have been in vain, could it) and find someone with the same qualification, so (3) you assume that the group is "his" (ignoring possible others with the identical qualification?).
