James Burke definitely has some good points in his discussions about history. It is true that history is not a series of individual events. It is logical to think that one event in the past caused another event, and that these events may even have an impact on the future. I can understand why James Burke decided to order history into a cause and effect system. However, I have a couple of problems with this system. To begin with, his historical map is far too linear. It’s not like every one event leads to exactly one other happening, and nothing more. Perhaps that’s not what Burke is trying to say, but his video makes it seem like it. Historians could probably come up with dozens of reasons for one event happening, and argue that that one event influenced a dozen others. I also get the sense that Burke does have what Tom Esty calls “ADD”. He seems to be jumping from one event to the next in an almost random manner. His jump from concluding one idea to introducing another seems a bit unrefined, and some of his connections lack basis or depth, and this leaves me second guessing a lot of his ideas. The way he jumps through events and skips over decades in history seems very unlike what a historian should do. He seems to be combining micro and macro history, by looking at events that are sometimes small and specific, and quickly correlating through time to try to get a look at the big picture of what happens in the long run because of all of the small and specific events. Burke is similar to McCullough in the sense that both agree that events in history always have an impact on what happens next. However, Burke’s analysis seems to be based on looking at events in the past and using our hindsight to correlate them. McCullough, however, asks us to look at people in history with empathy. Instead of using what we know happened next to judge events, we should think about only what the people knew, and then consider how we would have acted based on their knowledge and circumstances. Using this approach, we can better understand why people acted a certain way and why things happened the way they did.
1 comment:
James Burke definitely has some good points in his discussions about history. It is true that history is not a series of individual events. It is logical to think that one event in the past caused another event, and that these events may even have an impact on the future. I can understand why James Burke decided to order history into a cause and effect system. However, I have a couple of problems with this system. To begin with, his historical map is far too linear. It’s not like every one event leads to exactly one other happening, and nothing more. Perhaps that’s not what Burke is trying to say, but his video makes it seem like it. Historians could probably come up with dozens of reasons for one event happening, and argue that that one event influenced a dozen others. I also get the sense that Burke does have what Tom Esty calls “ADD”. He seems to be jumping from one event to the next in an almost random manner. His jump from concluding one idea to introducing another seems a bit unrefined, and some of his connections lack basis or depth, and this leaves me second guessing a lot of his ideas. The way he jumps through events and skips over decades in history seems very unlike what a historian should do. He seems to be combining micro and macro history, by looking at events that are sometimes small and specific, and quickly correlating through time to try to get a look at the big picture of what happens in the long run because of all of the small and specific events.
Burke is similar to McCullough in the sense that both agree that events in history always have an impact on what happens next. However, Burke’s analysis seems to be based on looking at events in the past and using our hindsight to correlate them. McCullough, however, asks us to look at people in history with empathy. Instead of using what we know happened next to judge events, we should think about only what the people knew, and then consider how we would have acted based on their knowledge and circumstances. Using this approach, we can better understand why people acted a certain way and why things happened the way they did.
Post a Comment