Introduction to the Study of History
Central question of Course: What does the academic discipline of history involve?
→ 2 approaches: 1.Comparing the academic practice of history with other ways of viewing the past
and then identifying the difference between history at university and elsewhere
2.Considering the (recent) history of the academic discipline of history
Academic Historians should:
-should be spoken without much jargon (for it to be accessible by wider public)
-ingenious, clever, work hard to go through entire archive for example
-initiative must be shown, less theoretically inclined than other academics (4p)
-not only perform tasks but also be able to explain why, empirical
Learning goals to acquire knowledge over the academic discipline of history:
-compare to other forms of engaging with the past
-overview of approaches (Maza) → use of the approaches (new approach = new past)
-past might seem different looking at from different perspectives and approaches
-debate and discussion are central (history is an argument without end)
Pieter Geyl (1887-1966) - ´history is an argument without end´ (timeless - history is situated → situations lead to new h.)
-Dutch historian, professor (at UU) (even this quote itself is situated)
-winner of P.C.Hooft prize (Dutch literary award), most famous historian in Netherlands along with Johan Huizinga
-publisher (for British empire, liberal newspaper) during WWI = propaganda (made neutral Dutch benevolent country)
-as a student he was interested in Flemish question (bilingual and social divide: Dutch and French (official l.))
→ Flemish movement (demands: higher education in Dutch etc. - more Dutch l.)
→ he sympathized with Anti-belgium/Flemish, supporter of idea of greater Netherlands
-Representative for a national bureau on documentation of the Netherlands
-trying to make propaganda to make Netherlands look good in British eyes (1919 - redrawing the map of Europe)
-Professor at University College London (Dutch Studies - newly found)
-his works are heavily biased by his political views
-professor at Utrecht university - less interested in Flemish movement (it turned in more fascist/national socialist m.)
- became a member of a Dutch labor party (democracy)
-he was in prison after Germany invaded Netherlands in WWII
Pieter Geyl vs Henri Pirenne (belgium historian → History of Belgium)
-defender of ´Artificial state´(not a nation state, artificial, came in existence in 19century)
-Geyl thought he did not stay true to history, u can´t project it to the past (it didn´t existed before), it is anachronistic
Pieter Geyl vs P.J.Blok (his teacher/supervisor of thesis)
-same anachronism - he presented borders of the Dutch at his time and projected it on past (small Netherlands perspective)
-he wrote his own History of the Dutch tribe (greater Netherlands perspective = exact opposites)
-argument from their side: we should do our best to be objective (Geyls political ideas went into his historical works)
-counterargument: their history is not objective as well (he was okay with history being influenced by the present)
(he was not okay with them hiding it)
-An argument without end: historiographical remark (about history writing)
political stance (antitotalitarian) - one of the values of open society
parodoxical (we need historians that think they are right - otherwise they won´t argue)
-defeating dogmatism
Central question of Course: What does the academic discipline of history involve?
→ 2 approaches: 1.Comparing the academic practice of history with other ways of viewing the past
and then identifying the difference between history at university and elsewhere
2.Considering the (recent) history of the academic discipline of history
Academic Historians should:
-should be spoken without much jargon (for it to be accessible by wider public)
-ingenious, clever, work hard to go through entire archive for example
-initiative must be shown, less theoretically inclined than other academics (4p)
-not only perform tasks but also be able to explain why, empirical
Learning goals to acquire knowledge over the academic discipline of history:
-compare to other forms of engaging with the past
-overview of approaches (Maza) → use of the approaches (new approach = new past)
-past might seem different looking at from different perspectives and approaches
-debate and discussion are central (history is an argument without end)
Pieter Geyl (1887-1966) - ´history is an argument without end´ (timeless - history is situated → situations lead to new h.)
-Dutch historian, professor (at UU) (even this quote itself is situated)
-winner of P.C.Hooft prize (Dutch literary award), most famous historian in Netherlands along with Johan Huizinga
-publisher (for British empire, liberal newspaper) during WWI = propaganda (made neutral Dutch benevolent country)
-as a student he was interested in Flemish question (bilingual and social divide: Dutch and French (official l.))
→ Flemish movement (demands: higher education in Dutch etc. - more Dutch l.)
→ he sympathized with Anti-belgium/Flemish, supporter of idea of greater Netherlands
-Representative for a national bureau on documentation of the Netherlands
-trying to make propaganda to make Netherlands look good in British eyes (1919 - redrawing the map of Europe)
-Professor at University College London (Dutch Studies - newly found)
-his works are heavily biased by his political views
-professor at Utrecht university - less interested in Flemish movement (it turned in more fascist/national socialist m.)
- became a member of a Dutch labor party (democracy)
-he was in prison after Germany invaded Netherlands in WWII
Pieter Geyl vs Henri Pirenne (belgium historian → History of Belgium)
-defender of ´Artificial state´(not a nation state, artificial, came in existence in 19century)
-Geyl thought he did not stay true to history, u can´t project it to the past (it didn´t existed before), it is anachronistic
Pieter Geyl vs P.J.Blok (his teacher/supervisor of thesis)
-same anachronism - he presented borders of the Dutch at his time and projected it on past (small Netherlands perspective)
-he wrote his own History of the Dutch tribe (greater Netherlands perspective = exact opposites)
-argument from their side: we should do our best to be objective (Geyls political ideas went into his historical works)
-counterargument: their history is not objective as well (he was okay with history being influenced by the present)
(he was not okay with them hiding it)
-An argument without end: historiographical remark (about history writing)
political stance (antitotalitarian) - one of the values of open society
parodoxical (we need historians that think they are right - otherwise they won´t argue)
-defeating dogmatism
