Saturday 13 November 2010

OK guys and girls, I have a radio show 11-12 on Wednesady's on wired FM (also online). The Skeptical Experience. Any ideas for guests etc?

Wednesday 3 November 2010

Goldsmiths College Students have occupied the Deptford town hall college management offices and plan to remain all night. http://ping.fm/MoPk0

Sunday 26 September 2010

FINALLY getting a 70's Carlsboro Stingray 120w combo. The most underated, bonkers & amazing guitar amps ever. Yeah baby, bring on the Suzz!

Wednesday 22 September 2010

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.
"By doubting we come to enquire and by enquiry we come to truth." -Abelard

Tuesday 21 September 2010

The first of many: the start of a regular blog plan

I am about to start back at Uni. This week is the last before freshers when I get stuck in as a Peer Assisted Learner before I too return to the intellectual grindstone. This has been one of the most interesting summers, no, the most interesting summer of my life without doubt. A number of things changed, a few new passions arose and some big steps were taken, and although I feel the summer has been a wee bit too long, it’s not one I’ll forget in a hurry.

First and foremost, I got married. Dawn and I have been together now approaching ten years and have known each other since we were 4 years old. It was a great day I will never forget, marrying for all the right reasons (this time) was wonderful and I am more than overjoyed we decided to fall for this one cultural norm and do the deed. I have to say, every time I notice my wedding ring, even 3 months on, I get a deep feeling of happiness. And yes, you should have had a bucket ready.
I travelled a fair bit: to the peak district of the UK in order to do Ghyll Scrambling, Walking, Quad Biking, Horse Riding and whatnot. Then to The Costa Del Sol to do nothing at all, then later to Athens to suffer 50 degree heat on the Acropolis. Finally, we spent a weak in Italy where one of my brothers also married. Dawn and I tootled about in a tiny little car around the mountains in Italy, enjoying many great cakes, ice creams and pastries before a mad Italian driver rammed into the side of our little car. Git.
I also got more into making little videos and You Tube. I am trying to make opinion vids and history vids in balance and at one point found myself on one video per day. I have way too much going on to get to addicted but bloody hell, isn’t You Tube addictive! So I’ll do my weekly rants (when I have a new camera) and my weekly videos about the crusades, join some late night blogtv’s and do some of my own (when I have a few more subs) but until then keep the dosage down. I received a prise for my work last year, and the good Rev, Dr Peter Galloway OBE is going to be buying me lunch and handing me £500 for the hard work, so I don’t want to scupper my studies through excessive YouTubeing. Another one of those next year and I can trouble Oxbridge for a scholarship to get my PhD sorted, and that would be rather nice.

So, what is this ramble about really? Well, I am going to do more blogs, sometimes to clarify my thoughts on the days study and just, sometimes like this, a waffle and sometimes a rant about the world in general (and don’t get me STARTED on ChristianFuhrer Ratzinger!). So I thought I would kick off with a ‘what I’ve been up to, and take it from there. Most of it will be free thought, and written on the spot so don’t expect any planning, structure or coherence, but hey, that’s me all over!

So I’ll blog you soon, and do feel free to comment and join me on YouTube (http://ping.fm/FkxNc)

Friday 17 September 2010

MY NEW THEME SONG:@ Rush – Faithless: http://bit.ly/ay3ftt Lyrics: http://bit.ly/aSAXUJ
That's it, it's war! http://ping.fm/20bkW

Thursday 16 September 2010

Mr Pope, the "religious who spoke the truth in love" weren't Catholics! They had signed a bloody agreement with the nazis to keep out of it!
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliiant: http://ping.fm/qQtEV
If I were Catholic, I would be so embarassed right now; the stupidity of christianfuhrer Ratzinger's speech is without equal this century.
Just started reading that David Hume bloke. Not a bad thinker for one who "could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel", allegedly.

Wednesday 15 September 2010

Finished my summer reading! So I get a couple of weeks of chillin'. I wonder what I'll do? Maybe I should read something?
"I couldn't see what all the fuss was about Lady Gaga yesterday. She's not doing anything that Su Pollard didn't do in the 80s."@DaveGorman

Tuesday 14 September 2010

I really ought to go to bed.
Try again. I am reading, but none of it is settling in my think-meats. Time for a rest me thinks.
I am reading, but none of the words are settling in my think-meats. Timefor a rest me thinhks.

Monday 13 September 2010

"The method of 'postulating' what we want has many adventages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil"- B. Russell

Wednesday 28 April 2010

Quote of the day- "i'm happy to earn ten pence less an hour if it means i get to leave the titanic first :P"- Saloni Chamberlain

Friday 9 April 2010

...and you say that you will pray for me. Do you realise that you are prey for me!

Tuesday 6 April 2010

When revisionist history goes too far

There are few things that irritate me more than revisionist history. From the ridiculous claims of alien DNA interventions and Atlantian descent, to the evils of holocaust denials, the revisionist stance so often takes the same approach as conspiracy theory and creationism: we have decided what the truth is, so now we will manipulate, distort and even lie about the facts in order to make them fit our truth. One of the most disgusting of these is the highly anti-Semitic revisionisthistory.org.

At Michael J Hoffman’s revionisthistory.org, blatant racism is badly hid behind a shroud of “historical endeavour”. From desperately a-historical accounts of Jesus and the Jews to out and out holocaust denial, this putrid little piece of badly researched and un-sourced rubbish exemplifies all that is wrong with the revisionist movement; subjectivity in the field of history is not the same as deciding what happened and making the observations fit your hypothesis. His obsession with crytocracy, the new world order and secret societies are shared with a number of conspiracy theorist of similarly dubious logic and while his views on slavery, that white slavery and the white poor in America are overlooked and may have some merit, his attempts to make the suffering of black slaves ‘not so bad’ does not. While not a white supremacist himself, it is clear that Hoffmann holds no love for Jews. Michael A Hofmann II, the anti-Semitic rat journalist behind these historical assumptions of the worst kind, is a beacon against the terrors that postmodernism could allow in. ‘historians’, and I use the phrase very loosely, such as Hoffmann would, should postmodern hacks be allowed sway, be embraced by the historical community as a whole rather than rejected wholesale, as is now the case.

Other revisionists may be crazy (David Icke) and often, apart from attracting a large group of lunatics, deluded (see the whole creationist movement who deny civilisation before 3,700 BCE) but this site is potentially dangerous, supposed scholarly meat to the rancid feast of extremists everywhere. Hoffmann, at the site, even admits that he is “cognizant of the original sin of his own subjectivity” and claims a special ability to detect historical fraud. I can only assume he has few mirrors.

Thursday 1 April 2010

Why write history?

Why write history? This question has plagued the discipline since it kicked off in earnest some two centuries or so ago. Dispensing with relativism, objectivism, subjectivism, postmodernism, Marxism and all the other isms that get thrown into the debate, I would like to strip it back to its roots and wonder why, no matter what school we buy into, we care at all? For me, I believe it to be the search for an answer to one the big questions of life the universe and everything: Where did we come from?

History connects us all, much more recently than you might think. The mathematics testifies to this and I apologise for getting technical but here goes. We all had 2 parents, who each had 2 parents (4), who each had 2 parents (8), who each had two parents (16) and so on. After going back 37 generations, at an average of 25 years between the birth of each generation, we would have had 137,438,953.472 ancestors only 925 years ago. That’s 30 billion more people than have been estimated to have lived as Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the whole of history. This is of course impossible. The explanation is a great deal of overlap, that we all share common ancestors, not in the primordial past or the Mesolithic distance, but in the last millennium. It means that every single one of us is, statistically at least, related to Richard the Lion Heart, to Guibert de Nogent, to William the Conqueror, to Ben Charlemagne, to Mohammed, to Zoroaster, Socrates, even Christ himself if he was a historical character. Our histories are interconnected more than most people know and our shared dreams, fears, passions and worries are shared for good reason.

Where did we come from? Cosmologically, we came from the big bang, and this excites the physicist. Biologically, we evolved as a result of abiogensis, and this excites the Biologist. Culturally, politically, individually and sociologically we all came from each other’s ancestors. We are all connected by a shared past and shared lineage that has wrapped itself around the tiny blue globe we inhabit, and the understanding of that shared past is what excites the historian. The historian, in essence, asks ‘where did WE come from’. Not where life come from, not where the universe came from, just US. History is a selfish discipline when cast against the vastness of space, but one that, if removed from society tomorrow and replaced with absolute subjectivity or ignorance, would sully our understanding of each other.

Why write history? Because we must!

Monday 29 March 2010

Could people rate my, admitedly, not great vid on you tube up please. It's getting hit by fundiebots! http://ping.fm/aUnRF

Wednesday 24 March 2010

What frightened people in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries?

My latest little essay, put here like the others for posterity. Also, you'll see that END-Times religious nutters are nothing new.

I hope some of you, at least, enjoy!

What frightened people in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries?

In November 1572, a type 1 supernova, later known as SN1572, lit up the night sky. Nestling at the centre of the constellation Cassiopeia, the star formed a cross that hung over the heads of all those in northern Europe for 16 months. Received as an omen, an angel or possibly god himself, the vision struck fear into the hearts of virtually all who saw it. Recorded by influential astronomer Tycho Brahe, it may seem unusual that a man of science would suggest that the star predicted “a new condition in kingdoms, different from the earlier and likewise a different order of religious conditions and laws”, but at the time, such ideas were far from abnormal. The star was seen as evidence that Judgement Day was soon upon the world.

The 16th and 17th centuries in Europe were a time of upheaval rarely seen in history. Scientific discovery, climate change, economic hardship, disease, war, pestilence, religious divide; the turmoil struck fear into the hearts of all who lived through it as they waited for the horror of the ‘last days’, so clearly being signalled. As chaos enveloped them, Europeans tried to make sense of the world and in so doing, many turned to the supernatural. An investigation into the culture of fear in the 16th and 17th centuries, through the climate, new discoveries, economy, the reformation, disease, fire and the belief in supernatural intervention, will show that Europeans feared they were living in the biblical end times and that the apocalypse had begun.

In many ways, the 16th and 17th centuries were an age of profound discovery. In astronomy, Copernicus’ work De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium was posthumously published in 1543, placing the Sun at the centre of the solar system rather than the Earth. Backed up by Kepler in 1609, and finally confirmed by Galileo’s telescope in 1632, these ideas shook Catholicism to the very core. The decision of the inquisition to add Copernicus’ work to The Index Librorum Prohibitorum, and ban Galileo from teaching Copernican doctrine in 1616, culminating in his trial of 1633, are evidence of the radical nature of these ideas.

Many other great discoveries were being made in the era. In 1492, Christopher Columbus set foot on the shores of the Americas, opening up a previously new world to be explored and fought over for the next 2 centuries and beyond. Suddenly, the world had become a much bigger, scarier place. Science and philosophy leapt forward; Isaac Newton perfected Galileo’s observation of Gravity by publishing Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica on the 5th July 1687, in which he detailed his laws of motion and many other great works of science and philosophy tried to make sense of the frightening world around them, a world changing beyond recognition.

The climate and economy in Europe changed quite suddenly in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the early 16th Century, Northern and Western Europe enjoyed relatively warm conditions. 1498-1648 was, in general, a period of growing wealth and population. In this time, however, the extremes of climate led to crop failures and famine on average every four years, getting worse as the centuries progressed. In 1570, an abrupt change to the climate marked the beginning of a series of cool summers which continued getting wetter, hitting their worst between 1640 and 1660. This devastated food supplies, causing a rise in the price of wheat, which peaked in 1650, and reduced the standard of living of the general populous. The growth in population soon overtook the growth in the economy, making jobs harder to find, especially in England. Inevitably, long periods of famine and starvation ensued amongst the now greater numbers of poor; a starvation believed by many to be sent by God.

The Political and religious landscape of Europe changed in 16th and 17th century. The Catholic Church, so dominant in European religion, had long been teaching the notion of Purgatory, a halfway house between heaven and hell where unspent sins could be worked off after death. People were advised that generosity, in the building of bridges, charity and ultimately funding the church itself, would reduce your time in purgatory through the prayer of those who had benefitted from your generosity. Another step closer to salvation could be bought from clergy as ‘indulgence letters’, reducing your sins through the prayer of others in exchange for payment. This created a good income for the Roman Catholic Church; Christ’s grace was still the only way to heaven, but an indulgence letter could help you on your way.

On the 31st October 1517, Martin Luther pinned his 95 theses, criticising the position of Catholic teachings, to the church door in Wittenberg. Luther attacked the practices of the Catholic clergy, stating that “They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory” and that “those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers”. The revolution this sparked surprised even Luther, who at the time was more interested in arguing against Aristotelian teaching in defence of “our theology and that of Augustine”. Nevertheless, a revolution began.

The timing was an important factor in the spread of Luther’s ideas. Religious arguments leading to war had raged across Europe before, such as the investiture crisis of the mediaeval period, but in the 16th Century a new form of print capitalism, printing pamphlets and books in local languages, spread radical ideas quicker than had previously been possible. Luther’s theses were available to the whole of Germany in only 15 days, and subsequent texts made Martin Luther perhaps the first “best seller” in history. The reformation had begun; a schism between Catholicism and the new Protestantism, whose battle for supremacy was to help tear Europe apart.

The military belligerence of 16th and 17th century Europe was not outstripped until the 20th Century. The terrible threat of the Ottoman Empire encroaching on Europe’s borders and the fears of raids from Barbary pirates was exacerbated by vicious internal wars. Between 1480 and 1700, England went to war 29 times; France 34; Spain 36; and the Holy Roman Empire 25 times, most noticeably in the 80 years war, sparked by a Dutch reformist revolt. Like many of the wars in the period, the 80 years war was ostensibly about religion, Philip II stated that he would rather lose his life and lands a hundred times rather than rule over heathens, but other factors did play a part. An early proposer of international arbitration, Émeric Crucé, commented in 1623 that “wars are undertaken either for honour or profit, or for the reparation of some wrong...one could add religion except...this serves most often as a pretext”; as is so often the case, religion and the turmoil of the reformation was used as the pretext for war. The 30 years war that began in Germany, in which religion was, again, used as the pretext, ultimately involved the whole of Europe. The intermingling of Europe’s wars was the norm, the only real exceptions being the French religious wars and the English civil the war. The separate English reformation, followed by the counter-reformation tyranny of Queen Mary, created enough fear in the actions of Charles I to help start a civil war which led to puritan rule and the Kings trial and regicide; an act without precedent in Europe. No matter what the real reasons for the endless warfare in Europe, religion was the common reason given, perhaps to make the fighting more vicious; it did have that effect. Such war would have been another sure sign the last days had begun; it must have at times appeared that hell truly was upon the earth.

The apocalypse and the reformation are almost inseparable. It has been argued that Protestantism was defined by its relationship to the biblical ‘last days’, the struggle between the reformers and the enemies of the gospels was central to the protestant message. Describing the pope, indeed, the entire Catholic Church, as the Antichrist, alongside society’s abundant sin, the weakness of faith and the arrival of the chosen prophet who identified that antichrist, was a sure sign of that the ‘last days’ were happening. Other apocalyptic cults had existed prior to the reformation, but these groups were usually considered fringe movements, in the 16th and 17th centuries, however, the lines drawn between reformation and counter-reformation powers led to a common belief that Judgement Day would soon come. These great upheavals gave rise to biblical explanations for inexplicable events, and an inescapable fear of God’s wrath and the Devil’s power.

Into this pot of economic, political and religious uncertainty were added other ingredients; pestilence, fire and superstition. Diseases broke out repeatedly and swept across Europe. In 1506, Albrecht Dürer wrote from Venice “pray God that I may be protected...especially from the French Sickness...nearly everyone has it”, discussing the outbreak of a terrible form of sexually transmitted pox that spread like wildfire across continental Europe in the early 16th century. Possibly an early outbreak of the modern disease Syphilis, it is easy to see the link between what surgeon William Clowes referred to as the sin of “Filthy lust” and God’s punishment for that sin. Pox was not the only disease that devastated Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Siege Disease, or Typhus, sprang from the Spanish assault on Granada in 1489 and carried through to the battle grounds of the era. The “English Sweat” which struck Europe in the 16th century was a “Pestilence horrible indeed, before which no age could endure” according to Polydore Vergil, but most feared of all was the Plague. Terrifying plague outbreaks continued to occur throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. From 1522 to 1636, nine bouts of plague ravaged Europe, touching every European at least once in their lifetime. The plague was “the just anger of God” according to French royal surgeon, Ambroise Paré. God was the “beginning and cause of the second [natural] causes”, the plague “not to be attributed to these near and inferior causes or beginnings, as the Epicureans [Atheists]...commonly do.”

Witchcraft went beyond both natural ‘second causes’ and God’s wrath. Intentional plague spreading, occasionally seen as act of political terrorism, was most often attributed to witchcraft. Plague spreading by witches with the potential to threaten regimes was documented in judicial responses in the western Alps, and witches were also accused of attempting to destroy Geneva in June 1543, when two servant girls were caught attempting to spread the plague, so it is claimed, by ointment. Some witches were accused of causing fires. Fire, which is “always insatiable and unjust...respects neither churches nor royal palaces” according to Nicolas De LaMare, was common across Europe. From the bridge fires that destroyed two of Paris’ main crossings in 1621, to the Great Fire of London that all but levelled the English capital in 1666, fires were common, deadly and terrifying. The wars that engulfed Europe made the danger of fire more probable, as fire was used as a weapon of war with great effectiveness. Some fires, such as the great fire of London, were attributed directly to God’s wrath, a divine judgement on the “Sodom of the Restoration”. Others were blamed as the work of witches in league with the Devil, preparing for the apocalypse.

Works circulated confirming the presence of witches and stories linked important figures to the horrors of witchcraft. The “Witches of Warboys” were implicated in the Death of Lady Cromwell, posthumous grandmother of Oliver Cromwell. Stories of witches who turned themselves into werewolves, such as Peter Stompf, who admitted to killing 16 people in 1589 after becoming a witch, caused widespread panic in southern Germany. Great intellects sought to prove their existence, arguing against the few sceptical voices. Royal Society member Joseph Glanvill, in a response to Robert Hunt, suggested, “To deny them is to deny angels, or spirits, or resurrection of the body, or immortality of the soul”; to Glanvill, the existence of “witches and diabolical contracts, [was] most abundantly confirmed”.

Witches were real to most of the people in the 16th and 17th centuries. The enormous social, political, environmental and religious changes that befell the peoples of Europe caused huge psychological and sociological strain and this is often enough to cause a witch craze. Jon Oplinger postulated that being different was enough to become a target of witchcraft in a kinship based society. Deeply imbedded community issues, personal grudges and the frustrations of the officious and overbearing were as likely to cause accusations as any genuine wrongdoing. In a time when newly unemployed people with a claim to village life were replacing wandering vagrants as the bulk of begging poor, those who did not provide charity to their neighbours when requested would often point the finger of witchcraft at that neighbour if a calamity then befell them. The resulting witch crazes in west-central Europe and periods of witch burning across Europe were the result of socio-economic pressures and the apocalyptic fears of the age.

One of the great changes that Protestantism brought to the faithful was the idea that the Devil could afflict someone personally. Until 1552, part of the baptism ceremony, the Sarum Rite, was used to remove the devil from the child shortly after birth. It was believed that the Devil was inherent in the child until this rite was performed, at which point, the child no longer had to fear the Devil. In 1551, Martin Bücer objected to this idea, claiming it devalued those demons exercised by Christ and the apostles. The victory over Satan proclaimed in the Sarum Rite had been replaced with the fear of a life long battle with the Devil. Criminals, the diseased and the mad were just some of his victims. A ballad from the period describes arsonists John Fodder and his wife as claiming “the Divell, or else some fiend of his, persuaded them vnto this foule amiss” after setting fire to Wymondham in Norfolk in 1614. Alexander Nydge was described by his brother, Edward, as being tormented by the devil, his madness lasting nearly 4 months until “prayer delivered him”. Increasing reports of the instances of satanic activity would have made it appear that the devil, indirectly through witchcraft and directly through possession, was getting ready to act out his role in the unveiling apocalypse, “For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto...the whole world, to gather them to the battle.”


Conclusion

According to Voltaire, “Three things flow constantly on the minds of men; the climate, the government and religion”. The religious and political turmoil caused by the reformation, the constant warfare, the collapsing economy and worsening climate were major factors responsible for the fears of most Europeans. The painful birth of new social orders and breathtaking discoveries that appeared to challenge God’s dominance over nature are good explanations for the continuing and indeed increasing fear of the apocalypse in the period. The chaos of the age led some to consider new explanations and ideas, and led others to rekindle old fears and superstations.

Like many periods of turmoil, explanations of the fearful mostly turned to the supernatural; disease, starvation and fire were seen as the direct or indirect wrath of God or the terrible acts of the Devil and his witches. Witchcraft and Satanic intervention were perfectly acceptable explanations for many misfortunes throughout much of European history, but the chaos of the times magnified those fears; the last days were here. Witches were now more than an evil nuisance to be destroyed when discovered; they were the apocalyptic foot soldiers of Lucifer himself.

When Tycho Brahe observed his star, he was not the only observer who believed in its astrological portent. To many in this period, the fear of the day of Judgement and of God’s wrath was an all-pervasive influence on their lives. Matthew 24:30, “and shall appear the sign of the son of Man in Heaven”, had come to pass, and it was clear to anyone that, as predicted, all the tribes of Europe, if not the whole Earth, were mourning. The unsettling pace of discovery and the appalling depth of turmoil had turned the world upside down; and now, they feared, that world was coming to its end.



Bibliography removed to stop plagiarism.

Tuesday 9 March 2010

Analyse the importance of the idea of objectivity in modern history and respond modern critics of the idea.

Adding to my lttle collection of works I am proud of. Citations have been removed to make future peeps copying much harder!

The ideal of objectivity, not allowing personal feelings or opinions to influence observation, is an essential part of the study of humanity and the universe. Researching fact, free from personal influence or emotion, separates empiricism from faith, knowledge from conjecture, doctorate from dogma. Without objectivity, all the gathered knowledge of humanity is reduced to personal belief. History, both an art and a science, asks for more than cold hard fact and the possibility of fact in history is defended by some, rejected by others; objectivity’s place in modern history is fiercely debated.

The emergence of objectivity in history, the influence of the enlightenment and the writings of Leopold von Ranke allow us to glimpse the minds behind the notion of applying objectivity to history. The use of objectivity in history by a champion of the observed and experienced, empiricist G.R Elton, the necessity for context and personal views in the subjectivity of E.H Carr and the rejection of objectivity by those who distrust it, Michael Foucault and postmodernists such as Keith Jenkins, reveal that entirely excluding objectivity from history is impossible. Analysing the methods used by these historians should steer us to the conclusion that although the theories within history are subjective, they should rest on objective historical facts.

The concept of objectivity in research originated within the natural philosophy of the 16th and 17th centuries. Born of the writings of Francis Bacon, the empirical ideal was applied to the study of humanity by thinkers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant during the enlightenment. At the dawn of the modern era, the importance of objectivity in the discipline of history was developed in Germany by a number of scholars. Amongst these were Freidrich Meincke, Johann Gottfried Herder, and most importantly, Leopold Von Ranke.

Leopold Von Ranke, in his 1830’s manuscript “On the character of Historical Science”, called for historical events to be investigated without imagination “pre-empting this condition” in “a documentary, penetrating, profound study” devoted only to primary sources of the “phenomenon itself”. Ranke placed objectivity at the heart of historical research. To Ranke, history needed no imagination, speculation or subjectivity. Nor did it need, despite his apparent faith in God’s plan, “the claims of a certain narrow theology”, but a profound, through and objective investigation. Ranke’s empirical and objective approach remains popular and has been embraced by many respected historians.

Sir Geoffrey Elton believed that an event known to have taken place in history is an objective historical fact, impossible to “make or unmake”. In ‘An Early Tudor Poor Law’ written in 1953, Elton demonstrated this view of history. The work investigated a long forgotten draft, found in the British Museums Royal Manuscripts, created in the autumn of 1535. The draft has a close relationship with the pauper act of 1536 but went beyond it in its scope. It is not Elton’s research into the content of the draft itself which is of interest, but his investigation into its origins. Elton seeks the author of the early draft, suggesting that the writer would be “a pamphleteer with an interest in social reform”, a humanist, a religious reformer, be known to government, probably belonging to a circle who “grew up around Thomas Cromwell in the 1530’s”. Elton provides evidence for each of these statements in the text and the footnotes and then concludes that he has found such a man, William Marshall.

William Marshall, an ardent religious reformer and pamphleteer, who was occasionally commissioned by Cromwell, seems a likely author. Marshall, also mentioned by one of Cromwell’s correspondents, was “the only Englishman interested in continental poor relief” according to Elton. Elton has him translating the poor relief ordinances of the town of Ypres, dedicating the work to Queen Anne Boleyn and publishing them “in order to draw the attention of the king and council to the problem” in the same year the draft was produced. In all respects, William Marshall fits the bill; another historian might find this evidence sufficient. The always objective Elton, however, qualifies his position by stating that “These are conjectures, though of a kind that ought to carry some weight”. He speaks of the difficulties and unreliability of the evidence on this point and concludes “we cannot, then, be certain of the author of this remarkable document”.

The objectivity shown by Elton here is admirable. His warnings against taking his assumption as fact despite his strong personal conviction not only warn off those future historians who wish to quote his conclusions, but also instils confidence in the accuracy of Elton’s research. Where Elton has evidence to back his assertions up, he states so boldly, where he has only circumstantial evidence, he warns the reader; this gives Elton a degree of academic integrity. Elton, a member of the political right and uncomfortable with change strongly endorsed the then already over a century old style of objective, empirical history suggested by von Ranke. But what use is history for history’s sake?

According to E.H Carr, pure objectivism is impossible because all historians are influenced by their own values in their choice and interpretation of sources. He claimed that history “cannot accommodate [itself] to a theory of knowledge which puts subject and object asunder, enforces a rigid separation between the observer and the thing observed.” Historians must, according to Carr, subjectively choose which facts to interpret. Some historical studies need a certain amount of subjectivity. Edward W. Said, for example, could not have researched ‘Orientalism’, investigating the relationship between ‘the orient’, or “the other”, and “the west”, nor challenged “the worldwide hegemony of orientalism” without subjectively choosing only the sources which informed his chosen study. Studying women’s, black, gay and other specialist histories would also difficult without subjectivity. The historian is, in Carr’s words, “balanced between fact and interpretation, between fact and value. He cannot separate them”. Carr’s own values and interpretation of fact, however, have been called into question.

Carr’s subjectivity was tainted by the search for a larger, progressive history “flowing”, as Richard Evans put it, “from past through present to future”. Some historians, such as Hugh Trevor-Roper, accused Carr of being a Marxist, a Stalinist and a Leninist; ignoring sources which did not accord with his own ideas. Others said Carr was highly critical of Marxism and that to say he was a Marxist is debatable. His comment that “Caesar’s crossing of...the Rubicon is a fact of history, whereas the crossing of the Rubicon by millions of other people before or since interests nobody” refutes that idea that his chosen historical approach was Marxist, otherwise the lives of the “millions” would be paramount to him. But political Marxist or not, Carr spoke openly about history as a progression towards a desired future, perhaps not, as Evens suggested, a “Soviet-style planned economy”, but certainly a progression.

In Carr’s paper, ‘Some Notes on Soviet Bashkiria’, we see evidence of this progressive colouring of sources. Words crop up like “economic and cultural development...substantially higher than their own” and “backwards regions”. He describes the Islamic and nomadic Bashkir’s as “primitive peoples” and insists that a positive turning point came for the Bashkir’s “with the development of industry”; no dissenting voices are heard from. The work is filled with facts and figures, such as population levels, but his use of relative statements like “but something had to be done, and the obvious alternative...”, typify Carr’s use of personal opinion; he presents no objective evidence that the action mentioned was necessary, or that the alternative was, indeed, “obvious”.

This pursuit of purpose in history was regarded as “trying to fill the vacuum created when God was removed from history” by Elton, who also saw Carr’s additional assertion that a historical fact only becomes so if it is chosen by historians as arrogant. Carr’s progressive subjectivity could lead to distortions and omissions from history, potentially creating a form of progressive pseudo-history, devoid of anything but that which enriched the historian’s own relative view of progress. Without some degree of subjectivity, however, histories focusing on specific fields could be overlooked.

Michel Foucault took Carr’s subjectivity further. To Foucault, history could not be objective. He stated that “historians take unusual pains to erase the elements in their work which reveal...their preferences in a controversy”, suggesting an approach in which “perception is slanted.” Not only is objectivity impossible, according to Foucault, but it should be rejected. “An event”, he claims, “is not a decision, a treaty, a reign or a battle, but the reversal of a relationship of forces”. In 1977 he stated of his own “Effective History” that “I have never written anything but fictions. I do not mean to say...that truth is absent...One fictions history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true.” His truth was a personal, philosophical, aesthetic perception of history, rather than an objective historical reality.

The idea that ‘absolute truth’ is impossible in history does have merit, but do any historians look for absolute truth? Foucault and postmodern historians such as Keith Jenkins are right to point out that a historical source does not provide any certainties. Mathematics has absolute and falsifiable notions such as ‘‘every circle has a centre”, and it can be argued that history does not; history, however, records some dates with almost as much certainty. Jenkins maintains that “history is intersubjective and ideologically positioned; that objectivity and being unbiased are chimeras; that empathy is flawed; that ‘originals’ do not entail anything genuine”. This is the “intellectual equivalent of crack” according to Elton; postmodernism attacked the core of his empiricist sensibilities, but Elton’s dream that “pristine pieces of evidence...organise themselves into...explanations”, is, as Jenkins suggests, farfetched. It is right to be skeptical about historical sources, but extreme postmodernism leads to what Elton referred to as acts of “frivolous nihilism”, such as denying the Nazi holocaust. This, as stated by Deborah Lipstadt, is a threat to all who value history as part of our cultural and social foundation.

Is a history without any objectivity even possible? Foucault did not seem able to avoid objectivity entirely in his historical works. In “Madness and Civilisation”, although his derivations are subjective, Foucault bases much of this subjectivity on objective, primary sources, such as Johann Weyer’s ‘De Praestigiis Daemonum’. Keith Jenkins and other ‘endism’ historians rarely contribute to the field of history, believing the study of history to be impossible. This begs the question: to what extent can they be regarded as historians rather than philosophers? It also casts serious doubt on the practicality of postmodern methods in the real world of historical research.
Conclusion
Ranke had a good point when he suggested that history should be “in pure cognition, undulled by preconceived notions”. The spectre of a world filled with Carr’s politically progressive views of history, or Foucault’s self-confessed historical fiction, or no history at all as suggested by postmodernism, is threatening. Objective facts are the bedrock on which we build historical theories and without their support, the towers of historical knowledge will crumble and fall.

Total objectivity is also problematic. As Thomas Haskell states, objectivity alone gives “a two dimensional representation of a path that is at least three dimensional”. In Elton, events were reconstructed objectively from their sources without questioning, unless the questions came from the sources themselves. As Quentin Skinner observes, if faced with a house which has nothing interesting to say, what should a historian do? Furthermore, if the house is huge and objectively reconstructing all of its facts would take a life time, is it not wiser to use assumption where it is reasonable to do so? The postmodern view that objectivity and absolute truths in history are impossible does have merit. However, as John Tosh explains, this betrays “an ignorance of how historians actually work”. The dismissal of objectivity through an inability to find absolute historical truth is as foolish as dismissing the validity of physics due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Most historians are well versed in the art of critical analysis. They, as Richard Evans put it, “engage in dialogue with it [the evidence], actively interrogating it and [bring it] to bare on theories and ideas formulated in the present.” By ignoring the dialogue between historian and evidence, we are left with the threat of prejudice slipping into our evaluations of the sources unnoticed. Additionally, specialist areas of history, such as black history and women’s history, are difficult to investigate without subjectively selecting relevant sources; Ranke and Elton’s wish for total objectivity could leave these important subjects forgotten.

So what is the best way to find balance on the tightrope between cold objectivity and subjective anarchy? Karl Popper has long since resolved the dichotomy of objectivity versus subjectivity in science, stating that “judges are not omniscient, and may make mistakes...in truth absolute justice is never realised...but the belief in the rule of law can hardly survive...an epistemology which teaches there are no objective facts”. Popper endorsed the concept of building falsifiable theories; based upon subjective hypothesises which have been tested by objective observations. This concept has been readily accepted by science which subjects its theorists to stringent peer review, attacking the validity and accuracy of both observation and theory. Science, for the most part, is comfortable balancing objectivity with uncertainty. Why isn’t history?

scarlet/blonde's "acerbic" out May 25th

Right, sorted,
scarlet/blonde's long lost and now back album "Acerbic...a loose
concept" is going to be released may 25th so y'all better go get
it!"

CD's will be available from Amazon and
MP3's from everywhere. In the meantime, here's
some music. From the album acerbic; Fuse [in session]

http://ping.fm/jdAuo

Saturday 20 February 2010

Facebook has knackerred my account so I can't log on and there is no way to tell them. Well done Facebook. (PS - this came from ping.fm)

Saturday 6 February 2010

The pupil asked the Zen master "What is Bhudda?". The Zen master took off his slipper, put it on his head, and walked away.

Friday 5 February 2010

Popculture and the new religions

I went into a book shop, something I do a lot, and found myself wondering about the gap between pop culture and academic life. Unless the shop is particularly huge, I rarely find a book which is actual history, actual psychology or actual science. The reason may be that the true concepts behind the disciplines are far too complex for the uninitiated to grasp and in the case of science this is certainly true.

The likes of Brian Cox and Stephen Hawkins write stunning books, beautiful in their description of unfathomably complex terminology, free of equations. A physicist would argue that you cannot translate the language of Physics, Maths, into English and expect people to truly understand it and this is true however, there are some excellent books that stick to the evidence and give us a glimpse of that amazing scientific world out there.

The same could be said of psychology, very complex and hard to understand so the language used in pop psychology books is a simplification for those without the time for 3 years of study to understand the principles. History too, perhaps people don’t want to read the statistics, the source analysis and the historiography that lies behind the history itself, they just want a good, interesting, narrative.

The problem is this; the dark side of pop culture.
In amongst the Hawkings and Dawkings, the Dennett and Cox, sit other, more popular science books. Rubbish like “The Genesis Enigma”, where Dr. Andrew Parker tries to shoehorn Evolution into Genesis 1:1-1:19. Awful pseudo scientific nonsense like “The Edge of Evolution” by intellectual pornographer Michael Behe, whose Intelligent Design arguments are, at best, laughable and at worst, dangerous. Mr Behe and other creationists: please go and stand in the corner with the Flat-Earther’s and Earth Centralists, the argument is over, you have lost.

In the Psychology camp we have “The 7 habits of successful people” and similar classics, to vloumous to mention. Of course, success is that simple, it has nothing to do with luck, timing and connections at all. The pop-psychology books and parapsychology rubbish go on for miles in most book shops; genuine interesting psychology like Malcolm Gladwell’s “blink” do occasionally crop up, but rarely.

As for history, pseudo-historic conspiracy rubbish is all the rage. Aliens built this, atlantis did that. Lizards rule, freemasons planning the new world order. The story of Jesus was a copy (it was embellished but not copied) of Horus and Moses was from Alpha Centauri, not Hyksos.

Listen very carefully I will say this only once. If ANY historian found ANY genuine evidence for ANY of that stuff, they would not be ‘held down by the conspiracy’. They would shout it from the rooftops! It would make them famous, make them rich, make them the Einstein of history and basically, that is what all of them dream about. Every historian on the planet would want a piece of the action and start studying the exact same thing. It would not be pushed down; it would not be ‘covered up’. It would be big, very big, news.
So why do people want this drivel? Well, because they want the world to be more than it is. The lack of Gods, fairies and monsters in post-Enlightenment times seems to have driven people to find new superstitions, no matter how farfetched. Then, they enter a new circular belief and their new imaginary world and accept nothing else. I really don’t understand it at all.

I think the universe we live in is more than enough. It is amazing, breathtaking, stunning. Read some Sagan- “we are made from star stuff, a way of the universe to know itself”- if you want spirituality. Read Hawkings describe the event horizon if you want to be amazed, buy Richard Dawkins’ “Greatest show on Earth” and see the amazing chaos led act that is natural selection in all its glory.

There must be more than this? How much more do you want!

mrgodbehere

Monday 1 February 2010

I am much more interested in a difficult question than in an easy answer.

Sunday 31 January 2010

9 mile walk; check. First bit of main essay; check. Relax and chill time; Doh!

Monday 25 January 2010

Right, time to nail this objectivity mofo!

Sunday 17 January 2010

Sleepy time!
Just a test of this ping thing. Carry on!