Sherlock Holmes and the Historian's Question

As I'm sure you are aware, I am a student of history. One of the funny little things about history when you really dive into the proper study of the subject is that it is nothing like what you think.

When I first started to study history, I thought of the historian as a kind of Sherlock Holmes. We'd take the information available to us and try to figure out what really happened. There's a common belief that history involves a knowledge of dates and names and then culminates in a sort of whodunnit. When the mystery is solved, we're pretty much done with it. The only thing left to do with the given event is to remember it - someone needs to study it every generation so as to keep it alive; the rest of us read about it or learn about it in school because it's interesting and worth knowing. Maybe we can even glean some knowledge about how to go about our own undertakings by seeing how things played out in similar situations in the past.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

This way of thinking has led to an idea in the popular mind that there is a right way to understand any event in the past, while any other view is, for whatever reason, wrong and must be dismissed.

The problem? It's utterly wrong.

Sure, in some sub-disciplines in history, there is a sense of figuring out what happened. This is especially true of ancient history, which provides us with so few sources that there is some debate as to the historicity of many events.

But outside of ancient history, this just doesn't work. Think of it this way - we have more sources from World War II than we do from all of Greco-Roman literature.

So, with the (tentative) exception of archaic/ancient history, we know what happened. The historian's major questions, then, are how and why, which are more interconnected than may be obvious at first glance.

The how is perhaps a little easier to understand - how does a German dissident jailed for treason gain a massive following and, in a matter of years, pull all of Europe into war? The how is connected both to the what and the why. How do we get from one point to the next?

The why is most certainly the biggest question posed by the historian.

It can be posed about the big issues:

- Why did the Renaissance occur when it did?

- Why didn't the American colonists not revolt against England in 1773 or earlier?

- Why did the Crusaders attack Constantinople?

- Why did the US drop two atomic bombs on Japan in rapid succession?

Or it can be posed to the individual:

- Why did George Whitefield prefer extemporaneous preaching outside of the traditional church building?

- Why did Herodotus choose to write about the Persian War(s) in the way he did?

- Why did Napoleon return to France from exile?

The great thing about the why in history is that there is no one right answer. There are plenty of wrong answers, but the right answer is eternally elusive. I know a number of people that find this to be the most frustrating thing about the study of history.

So if the historian is not Sherlock Holmes or Nancy Drew, who is he/she?

Stay tuned to find out...

Life's Little Institutionalized Ironies

This week I decided to write something on a lighter note. As some of you may know, I am a huge fan of what I like to call "Life's Little Institutionalized Ironies." Most of them are, in fact, ironic (I try not to Alanis Morissette the word "ironic"); I do admit that I place some items whose irony is in dispute in the category as well. Having said that, here are a few of my favorites (in no particular order):

Andrew Jackson and US Legal Tender

Andrew Jackson (7th president of the United States/Spanish Ouster/British Fighter-offer/Native Relocator/All-around Bad-Ass), in one of his more belligerent moments, vetoed the re-chartering of the Second National Bank of the United States. The Bank was up for re-chartering in 1832 and Congress sent the bill to Jackson for approval. Jackson vetoed the charter and, in 1833, removed federal money from the National Bank. The charter ran out and the Bank was no more. At the end of his presidency, Jackson also warned against the use of paper money (he preferred the use of actual gold over a slip of paper redeemable for gold). However, in 1928, Andrew Jackson was chosen as the new face of the twenty dollar bill. It is as if the Federal Reserve were giving a huge middle finger to Andrew Jackson, and I am convinced that he rolls in his grave every time a twenty dollar bill changes hands.

The Pulitzer Prize

Joseph Pulitzer was a Hungarian-born American known most notably for his work in the newspaper business (and as the antagonist in the beloved musical "Newsies"). Pulitzer is known in historical circles for his contribution (read role as co-founder) of early 20th century Yellow Journalism. In his bid to sell more newspapers, Pulitzer often sensationalized stories, using a variety of techniques regarding paper layout, story selection, etc. It has been said that Pulitzer is partly responsible for US entrance into war with Spain. This is an exaggeration, though more because his papers were not circulated outside of NYC, rather than for lack of trying. Pulitzer's stories often chose emotion over accuracy. Later on in his life, he is said to have become a more reputable editor. His role in Yellow Journalism is still felt today, over a century later. Thus, the irony that journalism's most coveted prize is named after a man who sensationalized the news in order to sell more papers.

The Eighteenth and Twenty-first Amendments

Note: This last one isn't all that ironic, I just find it amusing.

The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits the manufacture, sale, and transportation (including importation) of any intoxicating beverages within the borders of the United States. It was passed in 1919 and went into effect in 1920. Several years later, the people of the United States decided that Prohibition was not such a great idea after all. The problem comes with the fact that a Constitutional Amendment cannot be removed. Therefore, in 1933, the Twenty-first Amendment was ratified, which stated that the Eighteenth Amendment was thus repealed and the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol was once again legal. As a result, according to the Constitution of the United States, the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol is both illegal and legal (though its legality supersedes its illegality).

Those are a few of the more memorable institutionalized ironies/oddities. I hope you enjoyed and I hope you find a few of your own!