How do students of history and historians avoid projecting the present on to the past, and the more recent on to the distant past? Do they in fact avoid this pitfall?

Perhaps many are hardly aware of the problem. An example: as a result of the Holocaust, it is widely assumed Germany (and Austria?) were *rabidly, frantically, frenetically, hysterically* anti-Semitic for a very long time before Hitler's rise to power. However, the evidence indicates that with the exception of Southern Bavaria, Linz and Vienna, this simply was *not* the case. In the 20-30 years before WWI *politically organized* anti-Semitism was stronger in France than in Germany. Indeed, many German Jews seem to have been taken by surprise to discover that Nazi anti-Semitism was much more than just electoral rhetoric ...

Other examples where even historians seem unwittingly to 'write history backwards'?

Interesting topic. Hope it doesn't have to move to controversial but I trust the people in the forums!
I acknowledge the part of the over emphasis on certain aspects of history according to the era in which you live.
The French would like you to think that butter wouldn't melt in their mouth. There are places in France where you'd think that the camps were never held, nor the mass internements of Jewish populations.
Pithiviers, better known for the innovative obstetrician who advocated birth in swimming pools, was the scene of one such camp.
It's a topic that uncovers nerve endings in public life here too!

In Italy in the countryside there are people who tell you that the Partisans were traitors and that despite the fact that Mussolini was a dictator that the partisans came in and raped and pillaged places with a vengeance.

I also am seeing a feminist look at history or in literature, whereas in the politically correct American academic world you learn about all the women writers who never were famous during their own time. They are ferreted out for topics of theses and then at the university level, you are almost taught that these were the real writers to the exclusion of any of the classics of literature written by dead white guys as we say. Consequently you have an American student showing a painful ignorance of the most basic French writers who were male.

I did some extensive work on women painters but I chose, god forbid, to use examples of male painters and god forbid again to include women who were truly working and exhibiting in the Salons rather than elsewhere.
It worked pretty well in the end, but politically it was a difficult choice.

Ditto of the Spanish and Portuguese(during the inquisition)
and the English during Edward I's reign...
The whole subject of history being written backwards, or white-washed is usually excused with the ever popular, "history is written by the victors", and it is prevalent throughout recorded history.
In modern times history has even been staged.
Examples of this, would perhaps be better suited to the controversial issues forum.
How will the time we live in be recorded by historians?
Lets start writing now... Forwards...

Yes, in addition to unthinking projection, there are many other kinds of bias. What you, bruyere, say about the politically oh-so-correct preoccupation with women authors who were in some sense 'wronged' during their lifetimes to the extent of neglecting other authors is, I agree, very worrying.

Yes, Ikabud, history is written by the victors - or at least it's the victors' accounts that tend to get read first. Your observations remind me of some of the History I was taught at age 13-14. We spent some weeks on the 'History of British India' (!). We were told, almost incidentally, that India had a remarkable history of its own, that the Indus Valley had been one of the 'cradles of civilization', but we were told absolutely nothing about the detail - and that was the 'trick' ... We spent most of the time dealing with things like 'how the British threw the French out of India', the 'Black Hole of Calcutta' and the like!

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: bloomsby ]

That would be the same way that all the other colonial powers wrote, or taught their history, such as the Spanish glorification of Pizarro's deeds in South America, and the Portuguese historical accounts of the various peoples they dealt with.
I'm not on a European bashing trip, by the way, same goes for any established nation.
Accounts from "the other side of the coin", only ever reach the light of day, when many moons have passed and most folks no longer care, that is except for the ones who are then writing the history... Backwards...

You know what I just thought? I had already experienced the phenomenon while watching the European cup here on the border between France and Italy. I was watching the game on the French channel though I can switch to the Italian one if I want. The French were losing and the rest of the family left the room. I thought it was neat that the Italians won. Then the French won with a last goal! I yelled at those guys to come in and all around us the Italian neighbors were yelling at the top of their lungs that it wasn't fair!
The next morning the normally nice relations between the two were spoiled by people saying that the ruling was not fair etc.
Now it's the Olympics. You'll note that when you watch it in America if there's a sport the Americans don't excell in, it almost doesn't exist. But in other countries that have less money and fewer athletes they cover their own athletes first.
THe French coverage is on sports in which they excell and the past few years they've done some great things.
The Italians are the same though. I switch to their channel and it's the same thing.
It's probably the same in every country.
Any historical event is colored by the person who's writing about it.

You hit on something there, Bruyere.

I'm married to an Italian...who LOVES soccer...many $$$$ spent on satellite tv connections and long distance phone calls, etc...to follow along! Even the internet hasn't changed that habit, since he's not really computer literate (but clicks and moves, in the groove, for internet checkers!)

I don't want to make enemies here, but I've witnessed changes of allegiance in the Italian fans themselves...World Cup time....and if their team starts to flag, they go from being all pompous and bragadoccio, to VERY CRITICAL of their own! It's always amazed me!

Also, living in Canada, with great cable tv...I've watched for years the ongoing coverage of such things as the Olympics from both the Canadian and US perspective. Both simultaneously, most of the time. American coverage is quite biased, though they will fall for a curious human interest story! Seems they tend to minimize their "losers" so to speak...but don't herald the foreign winner much!
but that's OK, 'cause Canadian coverage will probably maximize it!

If this is offensive...somebody please stop me!
Just some observations!

This might be better in sports. Last night I watched the snowboard champions fight for the medals on the Salt Lake City Olympics. The French woman did very well. (Human interest, she missed the shuttle and got there late!). Then the American girl took her turn and the announcers were commenting it, though her moves were perfect and they admitted it, they also said, "Well at least Dorine has won a silver medal." Every time Kelly came down and did a flip or whatever they call it in English, they'd say, "Uh oh, she's very good..." then again, "Oh my, looks like a silver!"
The French champion was very graceful and said of course that the American deserved it, which she did.
The human interest story was that she'd skipped one competition because she wanted to help her dad with the harvest.

WHen the French champions go play for foreign countries, they are still regarded as French unless they play against France.

What bothers me more than nationalist bias - which can usually be detected - is unthinking projection We had examples of this in the rather unfortunate debate on anti-Semitism (in Controversial Issues). Some contributors seemed to write as if anti-Semitism (at least before the Holocaust) had always been the same 'thing'. A moment's reflection would have made it obvious that persecution of the Ancient Israelites cannot possibly have been characterized by, for example, the mediaeval *demonology* so characteristic of anti-Semitism after about AD 1000.
This is just an example and I don't want to provoke a re-run of that debate here

At times I wonder whether the study and writing of history is in fact a viable proposition, except on a very banal level.

Bloomsby...you make sense!
...and sometimes I wonder why I'm even on here!
I read almost everything....and tried, even, about anti-semitism....You've just got a WAY!
Guess I've got a lot to learn! Keep talking!

Many thanks, lefois. The point is, perhaps, that I've become very skeptical about most history writing - once one gets beyond simple, well documented facts. Perhaps my greatest doubts of all relate to things like accounts of 'Everyday Life in Ancient/Mediaeval ... ' Obviously, despite occasional moments of gloom, I *don't* think one should give up.

[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: bloomsby ]

During the 60s and early 70s there were attemps to produce phenomenological, or 'no-fault' history, written with absolutely no bias. These efforts were doomed to failure due to the fact that it's impossible to shake the particular way you see the world that you get from your own period. Even the best of efforts, untainted by nationalism, extreme feminism or anything elss, will have something of the author's own time in it. S/he may not see this, but in 50 years time everyone will.
I don't think this is such a bad thing, though. From Robertson through Pirenne and Braudel through to Hobsbawm, really great historians have used currents from their own period to help illuminate the past. Because they live when they do, they notice things, or are interested in things that would not have been as interesting to another generation. These people make perceptual bias work for them.

Good comment. Has anyone read Simon Schama's work on Holland and France? I don't know if it's my bias, but it's refreshing to read someone who is interesting and scholarly at the same time.

Another thing this whole thing reminded me of was the way films depicted the past and revealed the bias of the times. If you watch one of those Biblical movies, extravangazas concocted in the 50's, it's always amazing how voluptuous and red lipsticked the heroines are then you watch a more modern version, they try to make a concession to what we think they looked like.

YOu know I've often wondered why they didn't paint the temples of Greece with bright "gaudy" colors as they were instead of the white pure marble that we think they were. People would find this odd now!

We think that the white temples reflect purity etc. The real things were full of people selling trinkets, painted in very bright colors and full of statues as you entered, just about like a religious monument of today.

Very interesting points, Dobrov and Bruyere. It's funny that we like to associate Ancient Greece with *purity*.

As for conscious attempts at objectivity, it's intriguing that even notions of objectivity - or at least of how to achieve it seem to have changed. In the 19th century, some historians thought the key lay in editing 'definitive' versions of key documents ...

Well the only time you hear anything otherwise is when you see the traces of paint on those statues and then you realize that the pure white virgin marble type statues were actually not at all what they looked like to their contemporaries. And the temples were full of people hawking things and life around it, and much like a major monument like Notre Dame is today.

This reminds me of the thousands of people who were enraged when they cleaned the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. To many, Michelangelo meant for the frescos to be all amber and muddy and dark and they couldn't accept the idea of a brilliant display of colour at all.

Actually, the idea of historical objectivity that has been so used and misused in the 20th century began in the 19th with a translation error. von Ranke, who had such an impact on later research, wrote that he wanted to write history "wie es eigentlich gewesen war". Almost immediately this was seized on by British and American scholars and translated as "history the way it actually, or really was". However, it's pretty clear now that at the time von Ranke was writing, 'eigentlich' had a more equivocal meaning, and what he meant was 'history the way it apparently, and not actually, was. He was a realist and understood the limits of human perception. Nonetheless, despite the document-altering and empire-building rhetoric that coloured the period, all through the 19th and into the 20th centuries a solid core of great historians have tried to see history 'as it really was', and built a tradition of solid, honest research and scholarship. Certainly, writers of history approach the field for many different reasons, but there is much solid work done at the base level that can never be ignored.

Dobrov, you say 'eigentlich' meant or could mean 'apparently(ly)' in the 19th century. This puzzles me. Did you get this from a historical or from a linguistic source?

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: bloomsby ]

Both. A few years ago I wrote a paper on the development of the expository essay in England and America and I thought this was a really interesting point. Eigentlich actually could mean both actually or apparently at the time, depending on the context in which it was used. I'll be back in Montreal for a couple of weeks at the beginning of March and I can check sources for you, if you like.

Thanks, Dobrov. I'd be very grateful if you could let me have the sources. I believe that I've a reasonably good knowledge of German, and 'apparently' as an archaic sense of 'eigentlich' is completely new to me.
I haven't managed to find it any older dictionary yet: in fact, those I've managed to get hold of give 'exact' as the only archaic meaning ...

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: bloomsby ]

No problem. I have to go to the library anyway. Archaic nuances are real killers. What a great concept, though.

Hi Dobrov. Thanks! I think the key thing is this: Is there any 19th (or early 20th) century monolingual German dictionary that gives 'anscheinend' as a meaning of 'eigentlich'? By the way I think the scope of something akin to 'modality' somewhere on the scale 'exact-actual' (or 'exakt-tatsaechlich') is very restricted indeed. My *suspicion* is that the claim isn't based on any accurate knowledge of 19th century German usage, but on guesswork - perhaps even wishful thinking.

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: bloomsby ]

[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: bloomsby ]

Well, it's certainly worth finding out, I think. I wrote the paper in my pre-computer days, so I don't have any references here, but this has started me thinking about it again. I'm working on memory alone and am inclined to think you totally know what you're talking about. However, it would break my heart if you were right and it were misinterpretation or wishful thinking because I really like that theory. However, let's go for the greater truth!

Many thanks, Dobrov. I wonder if the *key* issue isn't really the view of history that emerges from Ranke's oeuvre, rather than the meaning 'eigentlich'? As you say, he was very well aware of the problems of historical perception and objectivity. The last thing I want to do is 'break your heart'.

The Duden Dictionary of Etymology (Das Herkunftswoerterbuch)discusses eigentlich as originally deriving from "Mittelhochdeutsch" : eigentlich, in the sense of 'leibeigen', "owning one's own body" , the equivalent of English serf.The Middle High German adverbial form 'eigenliche' is then said to have come to mean "explicitly".Duden says: ausdruecklich; bestimmt. (Probably from the idea: as shown in or by its very shape, appearance.)
If those were the medieval meanings already there is little chance it ever developed into an equivalent of apparent(ly)in its opposite meaning of seeming(ly), and then returned to its original meaning.
For seeming(ly) German has anscheinend, scheinbar and with a slightly different meaning wahrscheinlich.
Medieval German "-LICH" is the same word as Leiche: body, later dead body, corpse.
For eigentlich to mean 'anscheinend' you should have to construe it as deriving from an intermediary meaning: 'as WRONGLY shown by its very shape'. *Apparently* a contradictio in terminis.

First thing, Bloomsby, is MY HEART HAS BEEN BROKEN SO MANY TIMES that I can more than handle it. Also, It's an interesting point that has been floating around my brain for a long time now, and it would be neat to iron it out. If its' true, I'm happy. If I'm wrong (or my sources were wrong) what the heck you can write a sharp article and publish. Either way, it's great. Thanks, Flem, for the illuminating information and judgin by what you write, all does not bode well for our heroes. We'll see.