On a larger scale I, like Foner, believe that “all history is contemporary history” (1). While we as individuals see history as our experiences let us, society as a whole sees history as its experiences let it. Foner uses the attacks on 9/11 as an example to show that a society that had been changed by the events of that day will look upon history differently on 9/12 than they did on 9/10.
I’m not sure that the word interpretation gets the right meaning across. I’m not exactly sure what word would be better to use but I just get the wrong idea thinking that history is open to interpretation. I really like how Jensen says it, “assess factual assertions…weave them together…construct and explanation of how and why things happened” (1). To me Jensen sounds more concrete, like constructing an explanation is a job to be completed. I don’t really know how to explain it but interpretation sounds too abstract or something like that to be applied to constructing history. I do agree though that the teaching of history cannot rely completely on the relaying of facts. That’s definitely way too boring and doesn’t do any justice to the subject. History can be fascinating to just about everyone but definitely not if its taught as a compilation of data.
Stephanie - I can appreciate your discomfort with the word 'interpretation.' You like 'assess' because it implies that the historian is making history by assessing the available data. I'd like to suggest that this is also the meaning of interpretation - also drawing on data to make a determination. But remember that the interpreation lies both in the evaluation of the material but also in posing the questions.
ReplyDelete