2 July 2006 - Sunday
How to write tendentious history
Bias and spin in historical writing are very big topics in the blogosphere, so I have decided to write down some helpful tips for anyone trying to get started as a Partisan Historical Hack. I'm not sure anyone could follow all of these suggestions ... but I'm sure someone has tried.
* First, make no effort to develop historical research and interpretation sensibilities apart from your particular ideological project. Jump right in.Anybody have other suggestions? | Posted by Wilson at 12:10 Central | TrackBack* Evaluate the reliability of any source according to whether it corroborates your opinions.
* Make no distinction between facts and interpretation. In any case, remember that the truth of the latter determines the truth of the former.
* Assume that ulterior motives lie behind the work of any scholars who disagree with you.
* Project today's political battles onto your ancestors' lives.
* Use nice round numbers. Then round them again. With enough rounding, any number will support your position.
* Either adopt a position of total relativism or ignore context altogether. Switch sides as appropriate.
* Blame historical figures for failing to take into account what you know but they did not.
* Remember that a lack of acceptance or publicity is always evidence of a conspiracy.
* When characterizing your opponents' work, employ the term "revisionist" a lot. At the same time, obsess over how wrong the conventional understanding is.
* Remember that "left," "right," and other sweeping political labels always provide accurate insight into individual opinions. Everyone within the Left or the Right thinks and acts alike, for all practical historical purposes.
* Always think of yourself as politically incorrect. At the same time, always think of your detractors as fringe radicals.
* If you must read the things your opponents write, read only the stuff that uses the most pejorative language. This will provide inspiration and spice up your prose, as well.
* Never, ever consider the remote possibility that your detractors are intelligent people speaking in good faith.
| Report submitted to the Humanities Desk
Well, according to my logs, quite a few people are still reading without commenting. At least that means they aren't flaming me. *grin*
The thoughts of Wilson on 4 July 2006 - 16:47 Central+ + + + +
sounds like the next wilson blog contest...who can be the best historian hack
The thoughts of anna on 4 July 2006 - 18:33 Central+ + + + +
1) Quote the sources that support your theory. Don't mention the ones that don't. Non-experts won't know of the existence of these counter-examples.
2) Assume that abstract concepts such as 'Christianity', 'masculinity' etc mean exactly one thing throughout history, which is exactly what you want them to mean.
3) Point out the personal biases of your opponents, while pretending that you are above such things, with a purely objective viewpoint.
4) Find a minor error in an opponent's footnote and argue that the entire work is therefore hopelessly flawed.
The thoughts of magistra on 6 July 2006 - 15:55 Central+ + + + +
When quoting someone out of context never link to the original. But if you can footnote some obscure journal to which your reader is unlikely to have access, that will make your argument seem more professional.
The thoughts of Alan on 7 July 2006 - 15:04 Central+ + + + +
Absolutely hilarous! And I've definitely read some stuff just like it!
The thoughts of Jennie on 11 July 2006 - 21:10 Central+ + + + +
Cite interpretations of interpretations of references as though they were primary sources, as long as they agree with you.
The thoughts of Will on 12 July 2006 - 19:09 Central+ + + + +
Find the one person who is as ignorantly biased as you are, but toward the other side. Attack him as the only example of your opposition throughout your writing.
The thoughts of Douglass on 13 July 2006 - 15:14 Central+ + + + +
If you actually bother to look at sources, you can always find something bizarre. Don't deviate from your routine: treat the most obscure as if it were typical.
The thoughts of coronium on 14 July 2006 - 19:41 Central+ + + + +
Nice list, I just linked it for my students. Some additional tips:
1. Hold people in the past to your moral standards, or hold them to no standards at all saying they were people "of their times."
2. Base you research on other historians who already agree with you.
3. Always start with your thesis, then go looking for evidence.
4. Never change your interpretation no mater how the evidence piles up against it.
+ + + + +
Those rules remind me of someone I work with. In fact, most newsprint hacks of every persuasion fit the bill as well. Add in the politicians and this list looks like it has been around awhile. For Larry, nice additions. I sure your students will especially like them. Be prepared for some ribbing when they get to number 4 (mater).
The thoughts of sweeth2o on 20 July 2006 - 19:49 Central+ + + + +
With very few changes, these rules work well for the aspiring political pundit or creationist writer.
The thoughts of John McKay on 22 July 2006 - 15:48 Central+ + + + +
This would be perfect but for the following entry
"* When characterizing your opponents' work, employ the term "revisionist" a lot. At the same time, obsess over how wrong the conventional understanding is."
Since Holocaust Deniers call themselves revisionists, it backfires when trying to apply it to them. They do, however, obsess over how supposedly wrong the conventional understanding is.
The thoughts of Nick Terry on 24 July 2006 - 8:50 Central+ + + + +
A very enlightening and valuable list. I hope I haven't been guilty of any this....probably have at one time or another though. :)
The thoughts of elementaryhistoryteacher on 1 August 2006 - 21:14 Central+ + + + +
(You must preview your comment before posting it)
sry to c that no1 seems particularly interested in your intellectually stimulating/overanylzed blogs lately. i blame warm weather and nearing holiday. when will nuclear winter come and force us to think.........
The thoughts of some1 on 2 July 2006 - 15:20 Central+ + + + +