In response to knaide, I agree that we will never be able to know exactly what happened in the past, but I don't think knowing exactly what happened in the past is what history is. I think it has been acknowledged that. In the same series of thinking, I don't think the truth is exactly what happened at that moment in time, but maybe it is and it is just an idea that history and science strive for... now I am not too sure of anything. Also, I thought that neither Marx nor Darwin thought perfection would eventually be achieved.
I'm kind of torn between whether or not Contat is a historian…on one hand, I agree with what many people are saying about him simply being a storyteller. He did write from the viewpoint of Jerome, one of the workers and possibly a fictionalized version of Contat himself, so it definitely has a story feel to it. However, his writing proves to be very informative and teaches us about the past, which could make him a historian. I liked Kate's point, that even though we study history to better understand the past, we often write off primary sources as being more like just stories…at least that's what I've found myself doing for a long time. The analytical piece of the reading was definitely historical, seeing as it reflected on Contat's firsthand account in a very 'textbook-y' way. It's interesting, because I'm so used to studying history from textbooks and other secondary sources. But reading all of your posts and thinking about this more has made me re-evaluate my idea of historical text and the importance of primary sources.
To respond to what Kate said: "the fact that he was writing this in what was the present to him is what makes this history." In my opinion, that would make what he is writing more or historical evidence for history. So I agree with the point that Contat was not a historian, but that what he wrote is part of history, because it helps us understand a time that we can never experience first hand like Contat did.
I really enjoyed reading Darnton after Contat, because it put an explanation behind every idea or event that seemed a bit unusual to me. Not that I support this attitude towards cats, but I think I found the humor in the story after I read Darnton.
And to answer what Peter just asked maybe.... I think that Herodotus is still the father of history, because he was one of the first to do this what I guess you could call documentation..
I am not sure if I consider Darnton's account to be history. On one hand, Darnton analyzed this one piece so intensely that he managed to cover certain customs and a part of the French culture during the 1700's. And yet it goes against a lot of how we learn history, which is mainly in large chunks in a class and we look at multiple primary and secondary sources, instead of just one. But I also really liked these two together, because it brings this event to a very personal level that is often times lost. I think that is an important part of history, the people involved.
Just adding on to my post...I agree with Peter that storytelling and history can often be the same exact thing. People can use stories to learn about different past cultures and societies, and what happened within those societies. For example, I feel like I've learned so much more about history from reading stories and books than studying textbooks and memorizing dates. I just have a question that I want to throw out there: do you think that ordinary, every day people from the past, such as musicians, scientists, artists, etc. can also be considered historians, since their works of art/songs/whatever teach us something about their culture?
I see what you're saying Knaide. I think you're right that the truth will never be reached because we can't get rid of our own biases. But if we're saying that there is no way of getting to the truth than why are we giving Darnton and secondary sources more credit for getting history right? Also if history isn't about getting to the truth, then what is it about?
also I totally love what Lilia just brought up. I think that anyone who kept a record of something that happened in their life contributed to history, though i'm not sure if they could be considered historian(??)
Last edited by kscrimshawhall on Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
I agree with niko's point about contant thing being history, and also her mention of the herodotus theucyidites debate. also how disturbing teh story was... i had to apologize to my cats for even reading such a thing
i don't knkow if other people said this before but i'll say it again. i think that cantant is a historian because he may not have exclusively discussed history and studied it, he talked about a joke play that the paper printers used to tell on the ocasion to bitch about the boss, which has apparently been around for all of time, mwah hahaha. i may have missed something but i was under the impression that this story was a fake story that the workers just told for fun. not an actual account. cantant isn't a historian because he told the story of teh cat massacre, he's onebecause he told baout those who told the story as a study of their behaviours and wyas of dealing with troules of industrial life.
the other guy who talked was more of a traditional historian, but also a kind of pychologist socialogiost guuy.
Kate asked what history is about if it isn't about truth. I'm going to say that history is about getting to the truth, but it's unrealistic to think that we will find one final truth. (again, sorry Marx) This is sort of like Hegel's idea about progress. We can keep trying to move forward in time and improve, and get closer and closer to perfection/the truth, but it is unlikely to happen. I wrote about this a little in class today, especially the distinction between truth and perfection. I think we, or especially I, have been using those words a little too interchangeably. To get back on topic to my response about Kate's question, I think history is about studying human stories from the past to find the most realistic (truthful) chain of cause and effects. (or most realistic events)
Im not sure if Contat is a historian or not... He did tell a story of an event that happened in the past, but it still doesn’t feel like a historical account. And im being hypocritical here because I wrote my essay about Herodotus being the father of history because he is a story teller, but im starting to doubt myself... I think theres more to being a historian than just telling about what happened in the past. I think there is a specific way that the past has to be told for it to be history and a specific way a person has to look at hte past for it them to be a historian. Do people agree?
Also I am really disturbed by the story... and I think Contat could have found a much better one to prove the points he was trying to make.
And I like Dylans question that we need to talk more about where the line is between a storyteller and a historian because I am starting to find that there is a very distinct line, im just not sure what it is yet... I like his idea that a primary source is scientific and a secondary source is historical because it does seem that primary sources are just telling us how it was and not adding anything or analyzing the content, whereas secondary sources are looking at the event from the outside so they are less biased and usually more analytical of what happened.
I find it difficult to understand why people have so easily written off Contat as a historian, when many of us believed Herodotus to be "the father of history." Both Herodotus and Contat were historian-story telling hybrids. Their focus was on relaying an intriguing story rather than stating fact.
I can't decide if Contat is a historian until I know if Jerome is a fictional character. If Jerome is a fictional character Contat's account is merely a work of fiction with some muddled history tossed in. If Jerome was in fact a real person that existed, than Contat is acting as a historian. I also think I need a clearer definition of historian.
I think that Darnton's account is history because it reflects the views of his time and gives us a detailed incite about a past culture. He clearly did some research and thoroughly investigated the topic, like a true historian would. Darnton made some strong and convincing arguments on things I would normally write off as pure silliness (i.e. the connection of cats to sorcery and cats as a sex symbol.)
In response to Lilia’s question, I would consider every day people historians if they chose to study history or their work had cultural significance. According to the dictionary a historian is someone "who writes or studies history." So technically abiding to this definition, we are all historians!
I know what the dictionary says, but what do you guys consider the qualities of a historian?
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:46 pm Post subject:
I do not think Contat was a historian at all because his story was more like a tale than telling events from the past. In resond to Miranda, the reason I do not think he is a historian is because his story. Unlike Herodotus and Thucydides, he was more like wrting a story. The differneces between him and Herodotus is that Herodotus was talking story that had historical background, which helped his work seemed more like a History. But, Contat’s writing first, did not have a background of time and second, it is really hard to know if the characters are realy or not. When I was doing my reading, I kept thinking was he trying to tell a History or using story to portrait the classism in the past?
For Darnton’s piece, I can consider him as a historian because of his research on cats, and his analyzation of Contat’s story. He used the past events and account to examinate Contat’s story. He also question Contat’s story on why do the workers laugh. Being a historian, question the facts and find the more in dept knowledge of the story. Darnton’s analyzation was also really detailed. He started by stating questions. Then, he lead on to the background knowledge. At the end, he came up with an answer for the question. I think this process is just like Science.
Everytime, when we are studying Science, we always come up with a hypothesis first. Then, experiment. At the end, we find out the result.
A lot of people made very valid points in their posts. When I first read the article, I definitely did not think Contat was a historian. I thought he was a story-teller and this story just seemed fictional. But then I started reading posts and now I'm rather torn. Everyone is making such brilliant points on both sides. Like Knaide's example about art camp, "He told stories from his own life, and If I were to tell a story about my times at art camp I doubt many people would consider that history." But then I read Bree's post and when she said [quote]"i see what he wrote as a primary source, an important piece for historians to study but not necessarily the product of the discipline of History. i don't know, are autobiographers technically considered historians? i would disagree with knaide that contat's writing is like her writing about art camp, because we know from darnton's analysis that the cat massacre was representative of a wider feeling during that time period whereas art camp (though perhaps important to knaide) doesn't really say anything about america during the early 21st century."[/quote] it completely changed my mind. I thought that was such a valid point. Primary sources are so unbelievably important to history because if they weren't there, historians would have nothing to base their analysis off of. From taking Alex the Great last year, I really know how important primary sources are as we had to use many different levels of sources for our final paper. This makes me feel like Contat was a historian- but he wasn't recording history with the intention to help people learn from it in the future which I think is a key aspect of a historian. I feel like Contat (being a primary source) was even more important than the historian that analysis him.. but I don't think I would call him a historian just because he wasn't talking about/ recording history, he was just recalling something that had happened in his life. It wasn't really history for him at the time, it was just life.. The analysis of this story about his life is what made it history and made it relevant to a bigger, more important picture. Therefore a historian made Contat's memoir history. He was just someone who wanted to record something ridiculous that happened in his life, not realizing what a huge importance it was going to have on explaining France during the eighteenth century.
On another quick note something I found very interesting about Contat's story was how he explained the men getting ready to kill the cats. Specifically how they all assigned each other rolls as if it was a real human execution. "The execution is about to begin. They name a hangman, a troop of guards, even a confessor. Then they pronounce the sentence." It is as if they were performing a play or playing a game, pretending it was a human (possibly their masters). That part really jumped out at me.. I found it very puzzling. Did it jump out to anyone else? [/quote]
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:58 pm Post subject: CATACLYSM
I've read some great stuff, but it's interesting that nobody has argued that Contat WAS a historian. I'm tempted to give it a try. Sure, he created a pseudonym in his account of a revolt, but since we're talking about MICRO history, It may have been necessary for him to distance himself from the event and avoid opinionated statements. This is a primary source document, so he had an intimate understanding of the environment from experience. Contat knew firsthand the harsh conditions under which printing apprentices worked in the 1730s, and their struggles. He also worked in a guild of literate people, which allowed him to record his experiences. Just as bards and poets recounted events, Contat was a historian of sorts; passing down the story of how he and the other apprentices tried to get even with their masters.
This account is historical, but its telling is not professional. I would argue that story tellers have the role of preserving the past, but the format in which they do it is less uniform and universal. This is still an important primary source document, and reveals a great deal about the artisan society in 18th century France. _________________ "We have two ears and one tongue so that we would listen more and talk less." - Diogenes of Sinope
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
