To say that history is contentious is an understatement. In fact just today I was reading a book review of two similar books with very different versions of the 1960s. In Australia, we only need to look at John Howard’s concern for how people have interpreted Australian history. His understanding of historians who wrote on the massacres of Aboriginals was to label them ‘black arm band’ historians because of their focus on massacres, death and murder instead of the people or events that celebrated Australia’s history. History for Howard was Gallipoli, Anzacs, peaceful settlement and the glory years of the 1950s.
Most of us only come into contact with history during high school and most are reluctant to choose it as a subject. Where history is seriously written about and researched is within academia yet the history written in this sphere is rarely read. One reason for this is the difficulty of reading academic jargon. And to be honest, the other is the reluctance of some to have their work move outside the ivory towers of a university. Is it then more productive to have work published outside academia? The internet is an excellent way to get information out into the public that is factually correct as Marshall Poe points out. While it is true that anyone can publish anything online, it is also possible that any book can be published if the publisher believes a profit can be made. Marshall Poe is concerned that “uncritical, poorly informed” people can publish incorrect information online. This is also true. But should this stop historians from publishing online? The simple answer is no. Even within academia there are arguements over theory and facts, with debates continuing over many years. The internet is no different. People agree, people disagree. And people decide who to believe.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Yes the internet can benefit historians 24/10/2009
Tags: historians, history, internet
To say that history is contentious is an understatement. In fact just today I was reading a book review of two similar books with very different versions of the 1960s. In Australia, we only need to look at John Howard’s concern for how people have interpreted Australian history. His understanding of historians who wrote on the massacres of Aboriginals was to label them ‘black arm band’ historians because of their focus on massacres, death and murder instead of the people or events that celebrated Australia’s history. History for Howard was Gallipoli, Anzacs, peaceful settlement and the glory years of the 1950s.
Most of us only come into contact with history during high school and most are reluctant to choose it as a subject. Where history is seriously written about and researched is within academia yet the history written in this sphere is rarely read. One reason for this is the difficulty of reading academic jargon. And to be honest, the other is the reluctance of some to have their work move outside the ivory towers of a university. Is it then more productive to have work published outside academia? The internet is an excellent way to get information out into the public that is factually correct as Marshall Poe points out. While it is true that anyone can publish anything online, it is also possible that any book can be published if the publisher believes a profit can be made. Marshall Poe is concerned that “uncritical, poorly informed” people can publish incorrect information online. This is also true. But should this stop historians from publishing online? The simple answer is no. Even within academia there are arguements over theory and facts, with debates continuing over many years. The internet is no different. People agree, people disagree. And people decide who to believe.
Like this: