The Nature of History and the History of History

Professional, university-trained historians are brand new in the scope of the planet’s history. Using the analogy of the entire Earth’s history in a day where humans arrive at 11:58:43 p.m., modern history would arrive at something like 11:59:59 p.m.

For most of history, conceptions of history (see, we need different words in the English language for history as in the past, and history as in the study of!) were not necessarily intended to be accurate. This holds true for historians and non-historians. They were intended to provide hope, guidance, establish authority. They were narratives about where they had been, where they were, and where they hoped to go – with an emphasis on those deemed to be brave and right. They were based on “real” events and feelings, hopes and fears but were myth, not history. “Contrary to colloquial usage, a myth is not a story that is patently untrue. Rather, a myth is a story that speaks of meaning and purpose, and for that reason it speaks truth to those who take it seriously.” Additionally, to the general public, history is frequently seen as “dead” and something that does not influence the present, as this quotation articulates: “THE PAST IS DEAD. It is done. It is over. It is finished. It is dust. It is a new day today.”

Modern, professional, university-trained historians first emerged in the late nineteenth century in the context of the Gilded Age. Connected to the rise of a new and powerful phase of industrialism and the rise of other social sciences, “History” became a professional, academic discipline. For the first time, professional historians emerged and strived for objective, accurate, and evidence-based accounts, accounts that would be free of mythology. Of course, postmodernism has helped us recognize that no one is free of bias, but there remains a huge difference in striving to be free of bias and purposely being biased.

As a professional, modern historian, I define History (the study of) as not what happened in the past but a story about what happened based on available evidence, resources, interests, and prevailing mores/prejudices, for example. Additionally, I define history (the past) as everything that has ever happened, didn’t happen, everything that has been thought, etc., from less than a millisecond ago. To me, there is no such thing as “the present” – everything is the past or the future. I recognize the reciprocal relationship between biology, physics, and geology, for instance, and what happens or does not happen. The relationship between all of the pasts (earlier today or earlier this millennial) and the future is also an important reciprocal relationship. Finally, I do not see myself as a “history buff.” “History buffs” tend to be more concerned with dates, facts, and events. I care about cultural expressions, thoughts, feelings, significance, and change or lack of change over time and place.

Since the rise of professional history, with some exceptions (notably Cold War-era consensus scholarship), there has been an increasingly large gap between academic history and history as generally thought of by everyone else (“everyone else” includes lay historians).

Public schools, politicians, and (frequently) museums promote conceptions of the past that serve ideologically-driven agendas. These uses of the past also have the effect of making most people, especially the majority, or the targeted audience in the case of politicians feel proud of who they are and the nation in which they have citizenship.

For example, the last time I visited the Bullock Texas State History Museum, the entire “comprehensive” museum of Texas’s history had ONE mention of enslavement and this mention was inaccurate. Additionally, seemingly more than ever—given the power of present-day mass media—politicians (especially, WASP male heterosexual cisgendered politicians) manipulate anything and everything to control others discourage any kind of critical thinking. Check out this article and this article (HT to my friend, Daniel, the author of this blog for the second reference-link goes to his article about Carl Sagan) for information about what children are learning in schools using books from the A Beka Book company, which “is one of the three most widely used Protestant fundamentalist textbook publishers in the country.”

I’m regularly alarmed at what people believe about the past. I hear parts of conversations while eating out and people have no idea that what they are saying is simply wrong. Of course, there are a variety of perspectives and interpretations on everything, but we know from evidence, for example, that Black men have faced institutionalized, government-sponsored discrimination en masse since well before the nation’s founding. People still want to believe that there is no such thing as White Privilege or that Black people “just enjoy getting intro trouble.”

This gap relates to the conception of history most have held across time and place: History is not supposed to be accurate per se. It’s suppose to reinforce power structures and make those in the majority group feel better about themselves. Although, this process of constructing deliberate historical narratives to reinforce the privilege of some goes largely unnoticed and is an unconscious process, at least to a large degree.

In this blog, I said one way to be sure students will continue hating history is to insist students abandon myths by which they have lived. As history professors and educators, we have to realize that what we teach and require of our students (methodologically and instructionally) is contrary to everything else they have ever encountered (and will likely ever encounter). We know that physiologically, students humans are not capable of easily changing such deeply ingrained practices for both themselves and for their culture and world. The historical unconscious is a powerful force that guides who we are and what our culture is without us fully grasping the how and why.

For instance, public schools and politicians (especially, if not basically exclusively, in the South) still teach that the Civil War was over states’ rights. This is not accurate. We know from secession documents, soldier diaries and letters, and speeches, such as the Cornerstone Speech, that slavery was the cause. Students, however, really don’t understand why we are telling them something they have always taken as a core truth is wrong. They can’t fully internalize and change such a belief because we say so and because we show them evidence. To them, the “evidence” is that their parents, grandparents, school teachers for over a decade said it was over states’ rights. It takes an exceptional student and willingness to break free of one’s culture to rise above mythology and move into the study of  history.

This kind of “adapting” is no different than the “adapting” (e.g., abridging, changing, combining) we do everyday, depending on who we are talking to or where we are, when asked how are day went or about some past personal experience. All narratives are equally legitimate history and are likewise not meant to be accurate per se but are meant to present specific fronts of sorts as desired based on hopes, fears, and goals.

We still, of course, want to and have to teach evidence-based history, but we have to be careful not to offended students and potentially turn them off from history forever. It’s a tricky boundary. One way I have found to help ease this barrier is to focus on cultural artifacts from the eras under study and to also focus on historical memory. We can help students examine various narratives, how and why they developed, and the purpose(s) they serve. This is also the point at which history (the study of) fully becomes not just a social science but also a humanity. 

Be sure to also see History Repeats Itself, Why I Study History, and History as a Science and my other articles about History.

Also, Check out these two articles on Nick Sacco’s blog on similar topics.

The Reciprocal Relationship Between the Past and Present

Reflections on Museum Interpretation and Audience Agency


Categories: Thoughts and Perspectives

Tags: , , , , , ,

18 replies

  1. Not sure if I told you about the last time my father and I had a conversation over history — his claim that Ole Miss changing its mascot from Col Reb to the Rebel Black Bears is pure revisionism. I won’t go into my [ignored] response.

    So it’s good to see solid (albeit empiricist, I understand) evidences of the revisionism to teach that the War Between the States was — indeed — a states’ rights conflict, which is what I’ve heard and read too long.

    Thanks. Well-written, well-reasoned piece.


  2. Hi Andrew,

    Thank you kindly for the shout-out at the end of this fine essay.

    Your arguments have reinforced my belief that the discipline of History (big H) itself has developed its own myths over time. There remains many popular perceptions of historians working individually in an archive, writing a book, or teaching a class, using evidence obtained from research to objectively report on “how things were” all through the process. Visions of historians working collaboratively in a digital humanities and/or book project, creating education programs and public events in a public history setting, or working to preserve local history, enliven neighborhoods, or address contemporary problems through historic preservation are missing. I can’t say how many times I’ve tried to explain to friends and family what public history is or argue that history is not simply a classroom discipline, only to get comments about their shock that anyone could do history outside the classroom and questions about why I can’t just get a job in academia (which leads to another myth – the myth of an abundance of gainful tenure track employment opportunities in the humanities). This state of affairs suggests to me that there remains many popular misunderstandings about the very meaning of History itself. Unfortunately, far too many people still view and understand History as it was practiced in the nineteenth century, when the field first became professionalized (as you mention).

    In the same way that myths provide comfort and understanding about historical events, the mythic nineteenth century view of the discipline of history puts the past in a neat box. This view privileges certain types of history (political, military, economics) over others (race, gender, class, material culture) and argues that history is an “unbiased,” positivist rendering of a past completely separate from the present and devoid of any interpretation whatsoever. If we are to challenge audiences to move past their cherished myths, I believe all historians–regardless of their place in the field–need to de-mystify their own field of study. They should challenge their audiences to not view the study of history as an exercise towards reaching a factual “endpoint” that completely explains the past but as a lifelong “journey” that is constantly up for revision, interpretation, and questioning.


    • Thanks for reading and for your comment, Nick! And it’s my pleasure to link to two of your articles!!

      Really interesting and important thoughts about the myth of History. I too am guilty of this some due to my training. And that line of thought is not something I have considered before.

      How do you explain to people what public history is?

      I have noticed and have been bothered by how isolated the dissertation writing process is (in general) and how often the classroom for History or otherwise is viewed as only occurring in x place at y time. For my students, I try to use various online tools to extend the walls of the classroom, but it’s hard. As a culture, we have such firm views about the proper time and place for EVERYTHING. On another note, I was talking with a friend in my dissertation group, and we were discussing how fun and helpful it would be if they allowed (or even required!) co-authored dissertations.

      It’s funny and scary how pervasive myth guides or truths and conceptions.

      More later. 🙂


  3. Very good write-up, Andrew. Thanks for sharing. I especially like the part about myths, because too many don’t understand the true nature of myths, as they are governed by a black and white mentality of truth meaning fact and untruth meaning myth. There’s a whole world of gray in between that we wouldn’t want to miss out on 🙂


    • Thanks, Daniel! And additionally, what is a “fact” for Bob is not a “fact” for Sue. A whole world of gray and all kinds of different perspectives guide what “really” happened. 🙂



  1. 9 ways to be certain students will continue hating history. « Andrew Joseph Pegoda, A.B.D.
  2. Case Study: History, Myth, and Public Schools « Andrew Joseph Pegoda, A.B.D.
  3. On De-Mythologizing History | Exploring the Past
  4. History, Memory, and Why (Some) “Clutter” is Absolutely Essential « Andrew Joseph Pegoda, A.B.D.
  5. Important Conversations: What Does it Mean to Come to Terms With the History of Slavery? « Andrew Joseph Pegoda, A.B.D.
  6. History Repeats Itself, Why I Study History, and History as a Science | Andrew Joseph Pegoda, A.B.D.
  7. Part of How I Study History in 14 Points | Andrew Joseph Pegoda, A.B.D.
  8. 13 Tenets to Seeing and Understanding the World as a Scholar | Andrew Joseph Pegoda, A.B.D.
  9. 7 Reasons (Academic) History is the Study of the Present | Andrew Joseph Pegoda, A.B.D.
  10. “I Am Not Your Negro” (2017) and Useable Pasts – Without Ritual, Autonomous Negotiations
  11. Creating and Omitting History, Fundamentalist Nationalism, and the A Beka History Textbooks – Without Ritual, Autonomous Negotiations
%d bloggers like this: