Ever listen to a piece of music and hear an instrument you don't recognize?
Archaic Music Hoedown is here to solve another one of life's mild annoyances!
Sometimes called the 'Keyed Harp' or the 'Keyed Fiddle', the Nyckleharpa is a fourteenth century Swedish instrument with a similar sound to a modern violin.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The More You Know - The Molotov Cocktail
Although the Molotov Cocktail is popularly remembered as a Russian innovation, it is actually an older invention popularized during the Spanish Civil War. The name itself came from Finland after Finnish fighters used the petrol bombs against Russian tanks during the Second World War. Soviet Foreign Affair Minister Molotov had made the claim that the bombs dropped on Finland were actually care and food packages. Finnish soldiers joked that their homemade bombs were "cocktails" to go with Molotov's "foreign aid meals".
In fact, many of the wartime innovations we consider "Russian" today- especially those used against the Germans on the Eastern Front- were learned from poorly equipped but highly resourceful Finnish Soldiers.
THE MORE YOU KNOW~
In fact, many of the wartime innovations we consider "Russian" today- especially those used against the Germans on the Eastern Front- were learned from poorly equipped but highly resourceful Finnish Soldiers.
THE MORE YOU KNOW~
Monday, September 13, 2010
Opening Post: A Few Notes About History
The focus of this blog will be- if not always Western History- grounded almost entirely in Western Historiography. This is because I am a Western Student of Western History and do not feel confident speaking on issues I have little formal education in. That being said, the point of this blog is not only to educate a little on History, but also educate a little on how History is used and abused.
Don't worry- by the time you finish reading this post, you will understand what I meant by that.
Of all the academic arts, history is perhaps the discipline subject to the most skepticism, criticism and outright derision by people both in and out of the academic community. There are a few assumptions about history made on either side that I would like to refute, clarify and maybe explain in my opening post. Academics condemn history based on traditional methodology, accusing it of a rigid focus on facts and narratives as opposed to more progressive forms of analysis. Non-academics get this very special glazed look when the word comes up, indicating- in a somewhat dramatic fashion- that they are about to fall asleep.
I tend to attribute both these (very excusable) flaws to one very simple factor: history is taught incorrectly in High School. How "incorrectly" is not an easy thing to explain because history is taught wrong in High School all the way down from the conceptual level up to the specific facts. Most notably, secondary-level history courses are riddled with inaccuracies: damaging over-simplifications to blatant and calculated lies. Often the facts are distorted, biased or wrong- made sterile or self-serving by whatever cultural authority determines the curriculum. This accounts for people being really stupid about historical facts even if they happen to be very bright and nice people otherwise.
The conceptual factor accounts for people being really bored by history... even if they happen to be very bright and nice people otherwise. Ask most people why they "hated" about history when they studied it and they will tell you: "I am no good at remembering dates". History as math- a complex equation of months and years and days- is pretty much the first thing you unlearn when you hit post-secondary as a History Major. History is more like a map: it's impossible to memorize every significant date, event or person, but it is important to know a few of these well enough that you can navigate the landmarks and easily find specifics when you need them.
For example: as a student primarily of Western European History, I was told that I needed to know exactly four "dates" and three eras off the top of my head at any given time- The Fall of Rome, The Renaissance Years, The Enlightenment Years, The French Revolution, The Industrial Revolution Years and the First Two World Wars. With these seven dates I have an accurate map of Europe's modern existence. I can take a left turn at the end of the First World War to find the Russian Revolution and a long turn around the Enlightenment to the debates that birthed British Imperialism.
Of course, this is only one way of viewing History. The biggest problem with the way we teach History to young people is precisely that we use the oldest and most debunked methods of historical evaluation to set the groundwork. You see- History, like most forms of education, is a tool and in the wrong hands it can become a terrifying weapon of oppression and propaganda. This is why there is a secondary component to the Study of History known as Historiography that devotes itself entirely to a meta-textual analysis of the way historians write. The study of History is also the study of bias within History. Before I begin this blog proper, I'd like to give a brief Historiographical overview of some of the ways in which Historians write.
There are, of course, far more branches of Historiography than I plan to cover here. I have chosen to split the most common into three broad categories that concisely sum up the differences between popular approaches.
THE NARRATIVE APPROACH
This is your grandfather's history. It is also your mother's history, your ancestors' history and the history that you grew up with. Narrative History is both a stylistic choice and a method of organization that is tied primarily to histories written in powerful, conqueror societies (and most specifically tied to powerful European nations). Stylistically, Narrative History is the lushly written storybook of history. Depictions of Kings and Queens and Wars that craft a fairy-tale or fantasy novel out of real life events. This can be anything from a beautifully shot historical epic to a serious work of scholarship that revels somewhat suspiciously in the perceived glory of its subject.
In terms of Methodology, Narrative History is the act of creating a story out of linear historical events. While it is true that history does not happen in a vacuum and certainly, current events are heavily influenced by things that happened in the past and, oh yeah, the connection between such things is beyond important to know, there is a danger inherent in Narrative History that has caused it to fall under the scrutiny of the Academic community, even in the eyes of Historians themselves. The thesis of a Historical Narrative can often tread the unfortunate territory of implying Destiny where there is none. A Narrative requires a beginning, middle and end, after all, but there is no end to History and historical narratives in the past have fallen prey to the trap of using their beautifully crafted stories to justify themselves. If that's a little too esoteric for you, I'll give an example:
A book written on the history of the Spanish Conquistadors in South America has no actual obligation to tell the alternative history of the defeated Aztec Empire because its aim is to provide very explicit and precise information about the Conquistadors. If this book is a Narrative History, it requires a few things: protagonists, antagonists, rising action and a climatic conclusion. Already, we can imagine how things might get sticky, yes? The aim of a narrative is to evoke emotion and excitement. Either we are anticipating the defeat of the Aztec Empire as the only satisfying outcome to the story presented, or we are reading a book about villains and experiencing a sense of rising dread at the final outcome. While the second scenario may present more accurate facts, we are reading a heavily problematic and biased text in either case.
This is not to say that Narrative Histories are completely useless. Far from it! They are the easiest kind of history to hook non-Academics on and they often get people interested in more scientific and objective readings on whatever subject they happened to get hooked on. Additionally, Narrative Histories are written with biases and from experiences that themselves are worth examination. In the case of horrific events such as war and genocide, a narrative history can help us better understand what happened on a very basic, human level and thus help us cope with the scope and brutality of history. In the case of negatively biased narratives- such as the many apologias for Imperialism that exist- such flawed works of history help us understand the mistakes made in the past and better understand the attitudes behind such mistakes.
The biggest problem with Narrative History is that for many people, it is the only kind of history that exists. This is because until the late fourties, it more or less was the only kind of history that existed.
THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
Before the 20th century, History was largely anecdotal and observational, firmly grounded in the "Great Man" interpretation of the past; that is- Great Men (and Queen Elizabeth) and Great Events (especially those caused by Queen Elizabeth) were what drove the wheels of Civilization forwards. This view was widely challenged in the wake of WWII by a Europe that no longer had a taste for heroic tales painted in Nationalistic colours. From this criticism came Fernard Braudel, a French Historian who's work helped change the face of Western Historiography with a single book (you might say he was a "Great Man" and his book a "Great Event").
Rather than using anecdotal observation, Braudel relied on the observational sciences, using anthropological data and primary sources outside of personalized accounts to reach conclusions about the past. I'm going to let Wikipedia do a little work for me in describing his first and most famous book: Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen à l'Epoque de Philippe II:
Braudel focused on aspects of the past that previous Historians had had no use for: the lives and sociological makeup of peasants, the changing of the climate and the effect that geography had on the average person. This so called "panoramic" view of History was at the core of the prestigious Annales School, which valued an objective, scientific take on History for the sake of History rather than History with an agenda. This method of History has been wildly influential over the past half century, creating not only an era where it is impossible to imagine Historians not working hand in hand with Anthropologists and Social Scientists, but also providing a springboard for a whole variety of new Historiographical approaches.
Which leads us to...
THE SOCIAL/CULTURAL APPROACH
I'm cheating a little here, putting everything that comes afterward under a single umbrella, however I have a compelling argument for why I have done so!
The past half century of Historical study has seen an increase in specialization. Where once there were simply "historians" there are now feminist historians, children's historians, cultural historians, war historians, class historians, historians of ideology ect. ect. ect. Within each of these specialized fields lie further avenues of specificity. There are war historians who are specialists on Medieval Chinese Civil Wars and cultural historians who wrote their dissertation on farm women in Soviet Kyrgyzstan and so on and so on. Almost all of these areas of study have one thing in common: they are a reaction to the old style of history. Each new "genre" of History reveals a new aspect of the past in microcosm and a new way of understanding the present. There is no specific methodology here except to say that in my experience most good modern history borrows the best parts of narrative history and does not betray the rules set down by the Annales School.
GOOD HISTORY VS. BAD HISTORY
That's right. I said "Good" History. As I have already (more than) hinted at in this mini-essay, there is most definitely a thing such as "Good" History and "Bad" History. However, there is also such a thing as antiquated history and modern history; history that was exemplary at the time may be considered the "Bad" History of today.
It is important to read both kinds of history.
To you- the budding hobby historian- I say that it is as important to read Bad History as it is to read Good History. This is because the study of bias in History has become an integral part of Historiographical reading. Reach back far enough and Historical texts themselves become primary documents, able to reveal a wealth of information about the time period in which it was written.
BUT- it is not a good idea to read Bad History until you are good at identifying it. Sometimes Bad History is hard to spot. Sometimes it isn't even malicious! I'm running on a bit long here, so instead of giving you a complete over-view (I hope that I will be able to better explain the difference between Good and Bad History over the course of this blog), I'll give you a few short pointers on how to easily spot Bad History.
1. There is an obvious agenda. (note that an agenda is not always a negative thing: for example, feminist or social histories that aim to debunk the myths of sexism and imperialism firmly entrenched by classical texts is generally "Good". However, agendas that are not based on such academic debates- such as political agendas- are generally guaranteed to be a distorted view of reality).
2. There is an obvious Hero for whom the text refuses to give any realistic faults (this is the difference between Winston Churchill being a magnificent wartime Prime Minister who was nevertheless quickly voted out of office after the war for several Very Good Reasons and Winston Churchill being a God on Earth who personally saved eight hundred babies from house fires during the London bombings before flying to the moon).
3. There are very few sources cited. There might even be a "kazillion" footnotes, but they all source from a very narrow selection of texts. Granted- at times this may merely represent an obscure topic, but often it represents a weakly supported argument with few proponents.
4. Many quotes used appear to be taken out of context or are obviously cut up. You all recognize this trick from advertisements for Bad movies! "[MOVE TITLE HERE] is.... a... interesting.... experience."
5. Editorial style opinion. Even if the author is actively trying to push an agenda or prove a new argument, it is a Historian's obligation to maintain a neutral tone when presenting objective facts, even when using them to prove a subjective point. We can say that history has remembered Hitler as a monster and quote his contemporaries regarding his behaviour, but us Historians can't just come out and say: "So anyways Hitler was a giant, dripping donkey dick." Such things are just not done, and if they are it is Bad History (although, to be fair, it is also Fun History).
That being said, by my own rules, this Blog is going to end up demonstrating some terribly inexcusable aspects of Bad History, but through it, I hope to inform, titillate and turn some of my (theoretical readers) on to Good History.
In summation: Hitler was a giant, dripping, donkey dick.
Don't worry- by the time you finish reading this post, you will understand what I meant by that.
Of all the academic arts, history is perhaps the discipline subject to the most skepticism, criticism and outright derision by people both in and out of the academic community. There are a few assumptions about history made on either side that I would like to refute, clarify and maybe explain in my opening post. Academics condemn history based on traditional methodology, accusing it of a rigid focus on facts and narratives as opposed to more progressive forms of analysis. Non-academics get this very special glazed look when the word comes up, indicating- in a somewhat dramatic fashion- that they are about to fall asleep.
I tend to attribute both these (very excusable) flaws to one very simple factor: history is taught incorrectly in High School. How "incorrectly" is not an easy thing to explain because history is taught wrong in High School all the way down from the conceptual level up to the specific facts. Most notably, secondary-level history courses are riddled with inaccuracies: damaging over-simplifications to blatant and calculated lies. Often the facts are distorted, biased or wrong- made sterile or self-serving by whatever cultural authority determines the curriculum. This accounts for people being really stupid about historical facts even if they happen to be very bright and nice people otherwise.
The conceptual factor accounts for people being really bored by history... even if they happen to be very bright and nice people otherwise. Ask most people why they "hated" about history when they studied it and they will tell you: "I am no good at remembering dates". History as math- a complex equation of months and years and days- is pretty much the first thing you unlearn when you hit post-secondary as a History Major. History is more like a map: it's impossible to memorize every significant date, event or person, but it is important to know a few of these well enough that you can navigate the landmarks and easily find specifics when you need them.
For example: as a student primarily of Western European History, I was told that I needed to know exactly four "dates" and three eras off the top of my head at any given time- The Fall of Rome, The Renaissance Years, The Enlightenment Years, The French Revolution, The Industrial Revolution Years and the First Two World Wars. With these seven dates I have an accurate map of Europe's modern existence. I can take a left turn at the end of the First World War to find the Russian Revolution and a long turn around the Enlightenment to the debates that birthed British Imperialism.
Of course, this is only one way of viewing History. The biggest problem with the way we teach History to young people is precisely that we use the oldest and most debunked methods of historical evaluation to set the groundwork. You see- History, like most forms of education, is a tool and in the wrong hands it can become a terrifying weapon of oppression and propaganda. This is why there is a secondary component to the Study of History known as Historiography that devotes itself entirely to a meta-textual analysis of the way historians write. The study of History is also the study of bias within History. Before I begin this blog proper, I'd like to give a brief Historiographical overview of some of the ways in which Historians write.
There are, of course, far more branches of Historiography than I plan to cover here. I have chosen to split the most common into three broad categories that concisely sum up the differences between popular approaches.
THE NARRATIVE APPROACH
This is your grandfather's history. It is also your mother's history, your ancestors' history and the history that you grew up with. Narrative History is both a stylistic choice and a method of organization that is tied primarily to histories written in powerful, conqueror societies (and most specifically tied to powerful European nations). Stylistically, Narrative History is the lushly written storybook of history. Depictions of Kings and Queens and Wars that craft a fairy-tale or fantasy novel out of real life events. This can be anything from a beautifully shot historical epic to a serious work of scholarship that revels somewhat suspiciously in the perceived glory of its subject.
In terms of Methodology, Narrative History is the act of creating a story out of linear historical events. While it is true that history does not happen in a vacuum and certainly, current events are heavily influenced by things that happened in the past and, oh yeah, the connection between such things is beyond important to know, there is a danger inherent in Narrative History that has caused it to fall under the scrutiny of the Academic community, even in the eyes of Historians themselves. The thesis of a Historical Narrative can often tread the unfortunate territory of implying Destiny where there is none. A Narrative requires a beginning, middle and end, after all, but there is no end to History and historical narratives in the past have fallen prey to the trap of using their beautifully crafted stories to justify themselves. If that's a little too esoteric for you, I'll give an example:
A book written on the history of the Spanish Conquistadors in South America has no actual obligation to tell the alternative history of the defeated Aztec Empire because its aim is to provide very explicit and precise information about the Conquistadors. If this book is a Narrative History, it requires a few things: protagonists, antagonists, rising action and a climatic conclusion. Already, we can imagine how things might get sticky, yes? The aim of a narrative is to evoke emotion and excitement. Either we are anticipating the defeat of the Aztec Empire as the only satisfying outcome to the story presented, or we are reading a book about villains and experiencing a sense of rising dread at the final outcome. While the second scenario may present more accurate facts, we are reading a heavily problematic and biased text in either case.
This is not to say that Narrative Histories are completely useless. Far from it! They are the easiest kind of history to hook non-Academics on and they often get people interested in more scientific and objective readings on whatever subject they happened to get hooked on. Additionally, Narrative Histories are written with biases and from experiences that themselves are worth examination. In the case of horrific events such as war and genocide, a narrative history can help us better understand what happened on a very basic, human level and thus help us cope with the scope and brutality of history. In the case of negatively biased narratives- such as the many apologias for Imperialism that exist- such flawed works of history help us understand the mistakes made in the past and better understand the attitudes behind such mistakes.
The biggest problem with Narrative History is that for many people, it is the only kind of history that exists. This is because until the late fourties, it more or less was the only kind of history that existed.
THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
Before the 20th century, History was largely anecdotal and observational, firmly grounded in the "Great Man" interpretation of the past; that is- Great Men (and Queen Elizabeth) and Great Events (especially those caused by Queen Elizabeth) were what drove the wheels of Civilization forwards. This view was widely challenged in the wake of WWII by a Europe that no longer had a taste for heroic tales painted in Nationalistic colours. From this criticism came Fernard Braudel, a French Historian who's work helped change the face of Western Historiography with a single book (you might say he was a "Great Man" and his book a "Great Event").
Rather than using anecdotal observation, Braudel relied on the observational sciences, using anthropological data and primary sources outside of personalized accounts to reach conclusions about the past. I'm going to let Wikipedia do a little work for me in describing his first and most famous book: Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen à l'Epoque de Philippe II:
"For Braudel there is no single Mediterranean Sea. There are many seas—indeed a "vast, complex expanse" within which men operate. Life is conducted on the Mediterranean: people travel, fish, fight wars, and drown in its various contexts..."
Braudel focused on aspects of the past that previous Historians had had no use for: the lives and sociological makeup of peasants, the changing of the climate and the effect that geography had on the average person. This so called "panoramic" view of History was at the core of the prestigious Annales School, which valued an objective, scientific take on History for the sake of History rather than History with an agenda. This method of History has been wildly influential over the past half century, creating not only an era where it is impossible to imagine Historians not working hand in hand with Anthropologists and Social Scientists, but also providing a springboard for a whole variety of new Historiographical approaches.
Which leads us to...
THE SOCIAL/CULTURAL APPROACH
I'm cheating a little here, putting everything that comes afterward under a single umbrella, however I have a compelling argument for why I have done so!
The past half century of Historical study has seen an increase in specialization. Where once there were simply "historians" there are now feminist historians, children's historians, cultural historians, war historians, class historians, historians of ideology ect. ect. ect. Within each of these specialized fields lie further avenues of specificity. There are war historians who are specialists on Medieval Chinese Civil Wars and cultural historians who wrote their dissertation on farm women in Soviet Kyrgyzstan and so on and so on. Almost all of these areas of study have one thing in common: they are a reaction to the old style of history. Each new "genre" of History reveals a new aspect of the past in microcosm and a new way of understanding the present. There is no specific methodology here except to say that in my experience most good modern history borrows the best parts of narrative history and does not betray the rules set down by the Annales School.
GOOD HISTORY VS. BAD HISTORY
That's right. I said "Good" History. As I have already (more than) hinted at in this mini-essay, there is most definitely a thing such as "Good" History and "Bad" History. However, there is also such a thing as antiquated history and modern history; history that was exemplary at the time may be considered the "Bad" History of today.
It is important to read both kinds of history.
To you- the budding hobby historian- I say that it is as important to read Bad History as it is to read Good History. This is because the study of bias in History has become an integral part of Historiographical reading. Reach back far enough and Historical texts themselves become primary documents, able to reveal a wealth of information about the time period in which it was written.
BUT- it is not a good idea to read Bad History until you are good at identifying it. Sometimes Bad History is hard to spot. Sometimes it isn't even malicious! I'm running on a bit long here, so instead of giving you a complete over-view (I hope that I will be able to better explain the difference between Good and Bad History over the course of this blog), I'll give you a few short pointers on how to easily spot Bad History.
1. There is an obvious agenda. (note that an agenda is not always a negative thing: for example, feminist or social histories that aim to debunk the myths of sexism and imperialism firmly entrenched by classical texts is generally "Good". However, agendas that are not based on such academic debates- such as political agendas- are generally guaranteed to be a distorted view of reality).
2. There is an obvious Hero for whom the text refuses to give any realistic faults (this is the difference between Winston Churchill being a magnificent wartime Prime Minister who was nevertheless quickly voted out of office after the war for several Very Good Reasons and Winston Churchill being a God on Earth who personally saved eight hundred babies from house fires during the London bombings before flying to the moon).
3. There are very few sources cited. There might even be a "kazillion" footnotes, but they all source from a very narrow selection of texts. Granted- at times this may merely represent an obscure topic, but often it represents a weakly supported argument with few proponents.
4. Many quotes used appear to be taken out of context or are obviously cut up. You all recognize this trick from advertisements for Bad movies! "[MOVE TITLE HERE] is.... a... interesting.... experience."
5. Editorial style opinion. Even if the author is actively trying to push an agenda or prove a new argument, it is a Historian's obligation to maintain a neutral tone when presenting objective facts, even when using them to prove a subjective point. We can say that history has remembered Hitler as a monster and quote his contemporaries regarding his behaviour, but us Historians can't just come out and say: "So anyways Hitler was a giant, dripping donkey dick." Such things are just not done, and if they are it is Bad History (although, to be fair, it is also Fun History).
That being said, by my own rules, this Blog is going to end up demonstrating some terribly inexcusable aspects of Bad History, but through it, I hope to inform, titillate and turn some of my (theoretical readers) on to Good History.
In summation: Hitler was a giant, dripping, donkey dick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)