Study Buddy: Rome Midterm Break
So I am currently taking a break from my study of Ancient Rome for my totally awesome midterm tomorrow. And as I continue to study and express excitement over the small amounts of information that I can recall and remember I am becoming more and more skeptical of the study of HISTORY. Yes, I am beginning to wonder at the very very very last minute, end of my time in school that history is not really factual. Just because it has occurred does not mean that it is a truth of what has happened. That saying "lost in translation" has a HUGE impact on any sort of history being read, interpreted, or analyzed. Not only are we looking at a history written either recently or better yet, in the very distant past. We are reading the interpretations of someone else. We are reading the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, HOW, &&&& WHY that was most important to them. We are reading an interpretation of the facts. But we all know that facts get "LOST IN TRANSLATION." Let's use some of these Roman individuals that I am learning about. Better yet, let's see if I can express my understanding of how Roman history has been passed down the generation and has ended up in our laps, or my class room on the third floor of a building in the middle of my campus.
There is this thing, this concept, this idea-- of marginalia, and this is that throughout the histories of the past, people have put their ideas into the margins of scrolls, texts, and they have expressed their own opinions into the "opinions" of the source. And as times have progressed and we have developed as societies, or as people have become historians, they take those points in the margins and in a way incorporate them into the new text. Thus, the new text becomes in a way a new understanding history or the old history. So the old history is lost in the new translation of the new history. This is an example of genre/ form criticism because as historians we must criticize the form of source we are reading and really dig deep into the truth of the article versus the interpretations of previous historians, placing their own views onto our history. So HISTORY... the STORY of HIS. Or the stories of passing down the topics of the past. But topics that never fully get explained without first being influenced by the period in which they are being written. Salmon (a historian who was writing about the Second Punic War) compares the history of the past with the moments of his present. He compares Hannibal (the guy that was defeating Rome) to the Nazi and Hitler. Sooooooooooo is the history that Salmon writes, history or his story of how he believes the past to have been concluded? So I wonder, is there really a history at all? Or is it the best term that society has been able to give to the topic development over time and the passing down of successes.... because most failures are not always talked about and expressed in the stories. I mean let's be real, as real as Polybius and Josephus were in talking about their Roman keepers (not the best word choice but deal with it), would these two historians write about their Roman "masters" in the light that they were weak? NO WAY! They would express Rome to be strong and successful because it is better to lose to a powerful source than to look weaker than a nonpowerful source. The stories of the past are usually written and rewritten in the views of the winners. Because not many people want to read about the losers. But maybe a new field of history should look at the troubles and the struggles of the losers to understand the successes of the winners. Maybe we can learn from those mistakes better than the triumphs of the winners. I mean they say... history repeats itself, so maybe we should look at the ways to better the chances of the losers to become better winners? Because everyone already knows the history of the winners.
BACK TO STUDYING! Peace. Love. and Historical Interpretation =)
There is this thing, this concept, this idea-- of marginalia, and this is that throughout the histories of the past, people have put their ideas into the margins of scrolls, texts, and they have expressed their own opinions into the "opinions" of the source. And as times have progressed and we have developed as societies, or as people have become historians, they take those points in the margins and in a way incorporate them into the new text. Thus, the new text becomes in a way a new understanding history or the old history. So the old history is lost in the new translation of the new history. This is an example of genre/ form criticism because as historians we must criticize the form of source we are reading and really dig deep into the truth of the article versus the interpretations of previous historians, placing their own views onto our history. So HISTORY... the STORY of HIS. Or the stories of passing down the topics of the past. But topics that never fully get explained without first being influenced by the period in which they are being written. Salmon (a historian who was writing about the Second Punic War) compares the history of the past with the moments of his present. He compares Hannibal (the guy that was defeating Rome) to the Nazi and Hitler. Sooooooooooo is the history that Salmon writes, history or his story of how he believes the past to have been concluded? So I wonder, is there really a history at all? Or is it the best term that society has been able to give to the topic development over time and the passing down of successes.... because most failures are not always talked about and expressed in the stories. I mean let's be real, as real as Polybius and Josephus were in talking about their Roman keepers (not the best word choice but deal with it), would these two historians write about their Roman "masters" in the light that they were weak? NO WAY! They would express Rome to be strong and successful because it is better to lose to a powerful source than to look weaker than a nonpowerful source. The stories of the past are usually written and rewritten in the views of the winners. Because not many people want to read about the losers. But maybe a new field of history should look at the troubles and the struggles of the losers to understand the successes of the winners. Maybe we can learn from those mistakes better than the triumphs of the winners. I mean they say... history repeats itself, so maybe we should look at the ways to better the chances of the losers to become better winners? Because everyone already knows the history of the winners.
BACK TO STUDYING! Peace. Love. and Historical Interpretation =)
Comments
Post a Comment