WHAT IS A HISTORIAN? IS HE TRUE TO THE FACTS?

My post below flows from the post of Luke-D., a historian in England who is concerned about the two questions above, and many more, about the role of a historian. First, his thoughts, slightly edited.

Following my thoughts yesterday about the actual act of studying history, I thought I would elaborate further on this point. I would therefore like to question just what the role of the historian is in today’s society.
The final qualification to that is important, I feel that to some degree the role of the historian has changed over time, and as a consequence today’s historians (of which I think I am part) are entirely different creatures to those who were involved in recording history 100, 200 or 1000 years ago. I see a clear difference between ‘recording history’ which, to my mind was the job of those employed by the victors, and actually being a historian.
This though opens up a whole new avenue of questions. The most obvious one to ask is what does the historian do if not record history? I feel the answer is simple. Historians (from a modern perspective) offer a comment on historical events. The historian in this case does not simply recite facts, but instead offers justifications for these ‘facts’. History therefore, simply put, is opinion. No historian can, by this logic, be wrong. They have their own interpretations of different events and they have considered the evidence to form a conclusion..
So, if historians can be wrong, there must be something which says that they are wrong. This limiter, as already intimated, is social values. There are topics which are taboo in all societies, and this necessarily means that they are not ‘open’ for discussion from anyone, except to conform to the already outlined social values.
To return then to the issue of what the historian does. If the historian does not simply record facts, then what do they do? There is the oft churned out line that historians are there to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. However, this flies in the face of my other premise, that is, history is cyclical. If we just run with this for a moment, the logical implication that it makes is that the historian is somehow failing to do their job because the history keeps repeating itself under new guises. The trouble with the cyclical history idea is that it is broad, sweeping, and vague. When the details are explored further there seems little which unites the two comparative periods. Nonetheless, I maintain that history does indeed act in cycles, albeit very large cycles. If therefore the historian is failing, what is their role in a world which will keep playing out similar scenarios dressed up in different clothing for the rest of time?
I’m not sure what the historians role actually is, and whether this is different to what it should be. Should historians be there to open the eyes of the people to varying understandings of events? Should historians by very much like political parties, you declare yourself as agreeing with one about something, and stick to that? Such thinking presumes the role of the historian is a public one. What about the personal aspect of studying history? Surely some people are historians due to a thirst for knowledge about the subject in hand? Should historians only want to further enlighten themselves, or should their concerns lie with educating more people?

Hi Luke,

At the risk of sounding like a pedant, I here describe my habit for finding explanations and meanings. The first place I look for explanations (definitions) is the dictionary. The editors choose the definitions, by agreement, from contemporary writings of all kinds, and place them in dictionaries in order of frequency of appearance in those writings. There are exceptions, of course, and they are so marked. O.E. - Old English is one such common marking for non-contemporary meanings when words are still in use or adapted to contemporary usage.
So - out with my trusty Merriam Webster, “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary” of 1980. (I do use other specialized dictionaries as needed.)

HIS-TO-RY\ Latin Historia. Greek, inquiry, history. French, knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know: 1: TALE, STORY 2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) usuqlly including an explanation of their causes. b: a treatise presenting sysematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a sick person’s medical background 3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events (medieval~) 4: a: events that form the subject matter of history b: past events c: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)syn: HISTORY, CHRONICLE, ANNALS - shared meaning element : a written record of events
A Historian is 1: a student or writer of history esp. one that produces a scholarly synthesis 2: a writer or complier of a chronicle

My response to your questions is that it really doesn’t matter what one calls oneself or how one wishes to be called or defined. Whether you write for the victor with strong social or political leanings or you write against the victor with opposing views of the same events based on your own social and political (and economic) leanings, you are, ipso facto, a historian. What does matter is what one thinks of oneself and what one does. We who write history are not engaged in a contest to choose the best snapshot, the brightest, the most truthful or most faithful to the facts as they occur rather than as the historian sees them through the lens of his brain. I compare the historian to a mechanic. Both use the tools of their trade to produce a useful product. Some are more accurate or produce a better product than others. Some want the product to be shiny while other prefer the raw metal to show its true self. I think each historian must be true to him/her self, and it shall follow, as the night the day, thou can'st then be false to no man. (Plagiarism will get you everywhere.)

Frankly, I am more concerned with the writer of “his-story” who HAS a prejudice that is obvious. (Writing for the victor, e.g.) Then we can deal with it. It is the subtle, careful, thoroughly researched product that leads to sure conclusions that one must take care to inspect well. There is no absolute historical truth other than for those who believe in the unprovable.
So Historian - leave your mark on the face of the world for others to follow. That’s your role. It will be a combination of what you saw, heard, thought, and most assuredly, what you think you saw, heard, and thought as events unfolded before your eyes or as you researched them or saw them in your breathing moments on this earth. Do not fear inaccuracies. Yours will be as good as the next man’s. Stand firm for what you believe you saw. And stand firm for what you believe the meaning of events to be!

AND NOW, TO THROW SOME FUEL ON THE FIRE, consider this:

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM: The Marxist theory of history that holds that ideas and social institutions develop only as the superstructure of a material economic base.

My understanding of this approach to history is that the winners write the history because it is the Power Elites, the winners - always, who control the material economic base and it is (and was) the Power Elites who bring about change, the building blocks of history.

Note: As an act of self-preservation by Power Elites, Marxian theory and eveything that flowed from it in attempts to change the world's operating system, have been tarred and feathered and run out of town because of the huge intellectual challenge to the existing material economic base of the social order and its exploitation of humanity's plebean masses for the benefit of the few. The concepts of socialism and communism remained in the "intellectual challenge" stage of existence for a few short years after their birth. They did not possess the material economic base or the means to survive the onslaught by the Power Elites masquerading, ala Stalin, under the cloaks of Communist and/or socialist leadership. And education of ignorance taught the masses to fight against communism rather than support it.

There have been exceptions to this plot. But the exceptions mimicked Power Elite functioning. The prime example is The People's Republic of China. Other regimes followed Chana's example rather than that of Western Power Elites. Yet equality of the masses with the Power Elite leaderships is nowhere to be found. The most corrupt of these regimes is in North Korea.

My questions, not as a historian, but rather as an ethical humanist, are, "Is communism as a social-economic system at all capable of overcoming existing Power Elites, and if it is, can it survive the drives for individual power that have exhibited themselves throughout mankind's history?"

My deeply thoughtful answer is, "No" to both questions.