Keith Benson

Analysis of Curriculum Reaction Paper #2

Dr. Ben Justice

2.7.2008

In reflection of the weeks’ readings, I believe I should have read the articles in

the order in which they are listed on the syllabus. The first article I read was John

Lewis Gaddis’, “The Landscape of History”. After reading this article first, I really

was left wondering where Gaddis was going with his essay and what was he trying

to achieve. However, only after the finishing the other readings, specifically Edward

Hallett Carr’s “The Historian and His Facts”, and “Causation in History” did the

meaning of Gaddis’ article become clear.

In the “Historian and His Facts”, E.H. Carr explains how the histories we come

to study, read, and learn originate. Carr describes that history, as we know it, is

more than a “just the facts” endeavor concerning past events as most nineteenth

century historians saw it. History, Carr conveys, is much more than facts. History is

a series of events, interpreted, processed, and repeated, based on the historian’s

appraisal of their relevance and importance. And that appraisal is largely based on

the current zeitgeist and environment in which the historian lives. “What is history?,

our answer, consciously or unconsciously, reflects our own position in time, and

forms part of our answer to a broader question, what view we take of the society in

which we live.” So much so, Carr explains that historians do not belong to the past

but to the present. While this should seem obvious, upon first reading this, I was

amazed. Carr’s statement would explain the reliably cyclical shifting ideological

interpretations of historical phenomena by historians from liberal to conservative.

 While the environment helps skew the context in which historian views sets of

facts, it is the responsibility of the historian to take all of the seemingly related, and

unrelated, facts he has gathered and interpret them into a clear, decipherable, and

distinguishable story – all to make his story make sense. What a task. It became

clear why Gaddis insisted on referencing the painting, the “Wanderer above the Sea

Fog” by Caspar David Friedrich. On top of an infinite amount of facts, both relevant

and irrelevant, and numerous possible causes for major historical happenings, the

historian of his own present time must decide the best methodology and avenue to

convey a given series of events. While Gaddis agrees, similar to Carr, that historians

ought to be objective, objectivity is an impossible pursuit. And resulting from this

pursuit, Carr explains, for the historian, is a somewhat schizophrenic range of self-

evaluation between feeling powerful, and at the same time, extremely inadequate.

“Historical consciousness therefore leaves you, as does maturity itself, with a

simultaneous sense of you own significance and insignificance.

As I went about completing my readings, I too began to feel somewhat like

the man standing on the top of Friedrich’s mountain. While I am given a textbook

from which I am expected to teach, in my view, the 1000 pages are filled with

random names and events and arranged in a hodge-podge manner arranged only

by chronology. So here I am, the purveyor of historical “facts” to students who

probably would otherwise been uninterested. It becomes my duty to survey all of

the historical information available to me, and convey them in a way that is

decipherable, understandable and, hopefully interesting. Without a doubt I am

biased by the place and times in which I live and audience I teach; and rightfully or

wrongfully arrange my lessons within this context. And, while it is a daunting task to
undertake, and sometimes, very depressing, teaching history here does provide an

awesome view!