This past semester I started my first semester of Master’s
work at James Madison University for the Pubic History program. It has been quite a learning experience. One of the first things that surprised me was
that some of my professors and fellow students did not like what is called Pop
history. Pop history are those history books
that you pick up at the local book store that are meant for mass production
sale but may or may not be written by a trained historians. Pop histories have had something of a bad
reputation for quite a while for a number of reasons, some are poorly
researched, filled with extravagant and unsubstantiated claims, and generally
filled with oversimplifications or wrong information. Lauren Wheeler, A public historian, does a great
job summarizing what is wrong with pop history in her blog.
”Pop history is analogous to pop music – it is
light and easy to access and digest but without much substance. It can
also be seen as the tabloids of history in the tendency toward sensationalizing
over accuracy and use of outdated or disproven information. Most pop
history is encountered in television programming – the recent series “Viking”
is an excellent example – and distorts fact for entertainment value without
providing the viewer with a disclaimer. As a result when the general
public watches pop history programs they leave with misconceptions of what
happened and unwittingly perpetuate false information and assumptions about the
past. “ (http://canenvirorock.com/2013/04/16/public-history-pop-history-academia-and-jobs/)
There are issues
with pop history that must be said however, there are good popular
histories out there and I for one love a good pop history. They are usually well written, can be very interesting
and be a great resource for someone who would never ordinarily pick up a
history book and read. It is for this
reason I like pop histories! Anything that takes history and puts it from the “that
was boring in high school” to “that is really interesting! I never knew that
before!” category gets my vote. That
being said there are dangers to pop history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCFdWeQfA
One of the dangers of pop histories or any kind of history
is that some people tend to read one book and take it all as gospel truth, this
can be said of academic histories as well.
If someone picks up an academic history they are also tempted to say “see
here is an expert” and decide this is what really happened based solely on one
book. One of my pet peeves is sitting
down with someone and having a conversations about history and they tell me
exactly how it was based on “this one book” they read. This is not entirely the average history
student or history buff’s fault since historians and tour guides are trained to
tell their narrative from a conclusive perspective.
I believe in absolute truth. I am a Christian, my undergrad
in history was done at Liberty University where I was very much trained in a
modernist philosophy, that is that what happened in the past actually happened
in the past. However as a historian one
has to realize that we don’t have every detail of every fact. So there is room for what is called
interpretation. One historian will
disagree with another historian, doesn’t mean that one historian is absolutely
wrong and the other is absolutely right.
It just means that all historians are imperfect. John Fea, of Messiah Collage, once wrote that
“all history is revisionist history” it is true. All historians have the responsibility to
tell the truth of what happened in the past but just as when there are
different perspectives in any story the same story can have different
interpretations. I would encourage
everyone the next time they read the next best seller, most academic paper in
the world, visit a museum or watch their favorite historical movie, to ask what
perspective is being displayed and what is their evidence.
[1] Fea, John. Why Study History?. Grand Rapids, MI :Baker Academic Group, 2013.
I think the key is separating pop history from history. As long as a film, book, digital project, etc. presents itself as pop history or historical fiction, artistic license is permissible. Ultimately, it is the individuals responsibility to follow up on what is fact and what is mere interpretation of fact. Great post!
ReplyDelete