YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Stories About the Past I 2024

Stories About the Past I 2024 — Transcript

by Mark Brandon · 8,337 words · 1,348 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01thank you for joining me for this
0:03lecture stories about the past this is
0:05part one my name is Mark Brandon I'm a
0:09history professor at the University of
0:11New York in Prague I've been teaching
0:13modern American European and world
0:16history for over 20 years this is the
0:19book I published recently The Perils of
0:21race
0:23thinking it's about the history of
0:26United States and Central Europe in the
0:28interwar period I want to say a few
0:31things about what I think are some
0:33serious
0:35misconceptions
0:37about
0:40history first of all my students come to
0:43my classes and I think they have some
0:45very bad misunderstandings about the
0:48historical discipline and how it works
0:50and I think it probably hurts their
0:53grades secondly I think that
0:55misunderstanding or misconceptions about
0:58history are very seriously poisoning our
1:01public
1:04discourse the misconception if I can
1:06explain it is something like this
1:10history is this list of facts and
1:13they're certain and everybody agrees
1:15upon them and all you have to do is
1:17memorize and learn them because they're
1:18true and they're
1:20unchanging of that's followed by this
1:24presumption that because history is a
1:26list of facts that everybody agrees upon
1:29it's this
1:30very safe Armory of weapons that you can
1:33use in a political discussion to to win
1:37an
1:38argument you can use historical facts
1:41that everybody agrees upon and you'll
1:44decisively win in a political argument
1:47maybe in the
1:49Pu and maybe if I continue to describe
1:52this misconception a little bit there's
1:54this idea that there's the objective
1:57true
1:58history founds somewhere in some sacred
2:01book and it never
2:02changes and but there are these evil
2:05people these
2:07revisionists I've been called a
2:09revisionist by the way and they change
2:12history with their subjective personal
2:17interpretations and that's
2:22bad I think this reflects a serious
2:25misunderstanding of what historians do
2:30now I want to
2:33say when we're in a heated political
2:36discussion almost none of us ever quote
2:40facts from the discipline of physics do
2:43we maybe some of you do but most of us
2:45don't and the reason is most of us are
2:48smart enough to know that we have no
2:50idea what the
2:52hell physicists
2:56do and I want people to respect history
3:00a little bit too uh a lot of people
3:03don't really know what historians do now
3:05I do want to say I I think I I want
3:08history to be
3:09approachable I am I like amateur
3:12historians I like do-it-yourself history
3:16I think all my students should study
3:17history for
3:20themselves so I think it's more
3:22accessible than physics but I also think
3:25well the best way to do this is just to
3:27try to explain to you what historians do
3:32where do those supposedly certain facts
3:35come from how do we get what people
3:38think of as historical facts and so I'm
3:42just going to tell you and then you can
3:44see what you
3:45think first of all I and I've thought
3:49about this a lot I've had lots of
3:51discussions and arguments with my
3:52friends I think historians are
3:56storytellers we tell stories
3:59and we like to tell good
4:02stories and so right away that is a
4:06subjective
4:08decision when you when you choose which
4:11story you want to tell you say I want to
4:13write about this and I don't want to
4:15write about this that's your personal
4:16subjective
4:19decision and I think the best thing
4:23historians can do is tell a good story
4:26that is interesting and yes maybe
4:28entertaining and also meaningful I think
4:30that's important for as many people as
4:33possible when you go to graduate school
4:36as a historian you're always told the
4:39first historian was this Greek guy named
4:42Herodotus and he wrote a book called The
4:43persian bers maybe that's a little bit
4:46eurocentric but okay let's go with it
4:49let's just think for a minute why did
4:51Herodotus tell the story of the Persian
4:53Wars and I'm not going to get into all
4:54the details about the Persian Wars but
4:56just look at the map
4:59Persia was a massive Rich powerful
5:03Empire with a huge army look how tiny
5:06Greece
5:08is the Persian Wars is the story of the
5:12little Greeks who didn't even like each
5:15other very much unifying and coming
5:18together brothers and arms and fighting
5:21off to massive invasions from the
5:26Persians and we like those kind of
5:29stories that's a really good story it's
5:32not a story about some boring peasant
5:35who lived a completely unknown and
5:38uninteresting life in on a farm outside
5:40of Athens no it's about something that's
5:42interesting to a lot of people
5:46and as a historian my feeling
5:51is you always choose what you're going
5:54to write about and that's always a
5:56subjective choice so you might as well
5:58choose something interesting that people
5:59are going to like and be entertained by
6:01why not and good for you if you can have
6:04a New York Times bestseller it's really
6:07really hard to do if you can write that
6:09well and entertain that many people good
6:11for you that's a good
6:15historian anyway I could go on at length
6:18about that but I wanted to say something
6:20else about
6:22this remember my main argument I want to
6:24argue against that idea that history is
6:27just this list of objective facts
6:30and so I'm trying to say look historians
6:32choose what stories they want to tell
6:34their
6:35storytellers they can't escape that
6:37that's what we
6:38are well let me try to give a counter
6:41example of so just imagine you wanted to
6:44try to write a history of World War II
6:48and just list all the facts that
6:49happened without any commentary or
6:52interpretation I tried to do it when I
6:54was about 11 years old I got some
6:58history books out I said I'm going to
7:00write the history of World War II and
7:01I'm going to start with day one all the
7:04facts just the
7:07facts I never finished and now that I'm
7:11much older I know that nobody ever will
7:16finish such a book they'll never get
7:20through day one and the reason is that
7:22an infinite number of things happened on
7:25day one or at least practically speaking
7:28an infinite number of things happen you
7:30could never list them all you have to
7:32choose which ones you think are
7:35important and which ones you don't think
7:37are important and by the
7:40way here's another thing to make it
7:44complicated it's an interpretive
7:46subjective
7:49decision when you decide which day is
7:52day one of World War II if you're in
7:56China in mansuria it might be 1931 if
7:59you're
8:00in Czechoslovakia it might be 1938 if
8:03you're in the United States it might be
8:051941 it depends on what you think is
8:08important historians always choose which
8:11stories they want to tell so why not
8:13tell an interesting entertaining story I
8:16think meaningful is also important and
8:19why not just recognize that that's a
8:20subjective
8:22choice I always tell my students facts
8:25are
8:26infinite there's an infinite number of
8:28facts you always choose the ones that
8:31you think are important and that's a
8:34subjective
8:35choice
8:37now I know because I've walked through
8:39this in discussions with students many
8:41times I know what I think I know what
8:43people are thinking
8:45next so is is it all just made
8:49up what's the difference between a
8:52historian and just uh somebody who
8:54writes detective fiction novels do
8:57historians just make everything
9:00up and the answer is no
9:04so follow let's go back along the follow
9:07the line of argument historians are
9:10storytellers we tell
9:12stories in that sense we're like a
9:15novelist but we don't just go down into
9:18the Sellar and make up a fiction story
9:20science fiction you just don't make it
9:22up historians are storytellers but we
9:25have special rules that we have to
9:28follow when we tell our stor
9:31and here's the rules the stories have to
9:34be built on the Critical examination of
9:37primary
9:38sources and it's going to get fun
9:40because there's tons of problems with
9:42primary sources that I want to talk
9:43about
9:45but so we tell stories and the stories
9:48are have to be pieced together based on
9:51the Critical examination of primary
9:55sources what are primary sources
9:59it this could be a complicated
10:01discussion but for today's lecture let's
10:03just make it simple they are written
10:06sources that they might not always be
10:09written but let's just go with that
10:11they're written
10:12sources that come from the period that
10:15you are
10:18studying so if you're studying World War
10:20I there sources written between 1914 and
10:261918 they might look like this if you
10:28study modern history which I
10:32like there's a lot of published books
10:36you can download the PDFs online this is
10:39the Eva this is a book written in the
10:421920s by the first president of
10:44czechoslovak Tom M like I bought at a
10:47secondhand bookstore in the Czech
10:50Republic they also might look like these
10:54that I have displayed for you I just
10:57pulled these out of my files these are
10:59really nice that by the way I should say
11:02these are archival sources which if you
11:05really wan to study history you're
11:08probably going to end up in an archive
11:09but I'll just say I've seen any
11:13historian has seen has seen
11:17this this is really nice handwriting by
11:20the way this is very nice manuscript you
11:22should see
11:23something it gives you an example of
11:25what primary sources look like
11:30usually the more primary they get the
11:32harder they are to understand and read
11:35anyway so now you know what they are and
11:38another thing and this is maybe the most
11:39important thing of the whole lecture
11:41that you have to
11:43know
11:46all the only way to answer historical
11:51questions is by studying primary
11:57sources all historical
11:59questions have to be answered by primary
12:03sources this is an old Latin phrase that
12:05goes back to the Renaissance or add font
12:08back to the sources always have to go to
12:12the most original
12:13sources
12:15so if if you're studying physics right
12:18you get a list of axioms that you work
12:21with or math in
12:23history the primary
12:26starting point the primary rule is all
12:29historical questions have to be answered
12:32in primary
12:35sources So and I've had this discussion
12:37with students a lot you might have
12:40theories about history that you think
12:43make good sense to you let me I tried I
12:47could think of lots of examples I tried
12:48to think of a good one in earlier in my
12:51career I was very interested in the
12:53question why did people in the Middle
12:55Ages all the way up until maybe the
12:58enlightenment why did everybody believe
13:00in the
13:02Supernatural from the most uneducated
13:06peasant up to the most important
13:07University Professor they all believed
13:09in witches they all believed in Magic
13:11they all believed in the Supernatural I
13:13don't want to get into it well why I
13:16think a lot of people would say well
13:18it's because the Roman Catholic Church
13:21used a kind of propaganda to brainwash
13:24them
13:25all and look that's a very viable
13:32hypothesis you'd get away with saying
13:34that in a room full of
13:37professors it's kind of a smart
13:41interpretation it doesn't
13:44matter in history you have to find
13:47primary you have to use primary sources
13:50to make an argument for that hypothesis
13:53so that Catholic Church we're very
13:55influenced well I won't I could go on
13:58about that but the Catholic Church
13:59brainwashed people and that's why they
14:01believed in the Supernatural and
14:03miracles and witches and all of that so
14:05that's very smart hypothesis I think
14:08probably it's it's to some extent true
14:10but it doesn't matter you have to go
14:12into an archive somewhere and illustrate
14:14that somehow using primary sources and I
14:18promise you that's going to get way more
14:21complicated than you
14:23think because there's tons of literature
14:25on it it's going to get much more
14:28complicated than you realize so it what
14:31I'm saying here is it doesn't
14:33matter if you have what you think is a
14:36common sense theory that answers your
14:38questions about history doesn't matter
14:40for the historian the only way
14:43to answer that question why did people
14:46believe in the Supernatural is you have
14:48to make an argument based on primary
14:52sources by the way it doesn't matter
14:54what other in the end it doesn't matter
14:56what authorities say about it either it
14:57doesn't matter what other historians say
14:59say about it you should read what they
15:01say and be interested but doesn't matter
15:04all that matters is what the argument
15:07you can make based on the primary
15:08sources now I spent a long time on that
15:11and believe me I could go
15:14on but I hope you see that the idea of
15:17history is a list of facts I hope that's
15:19starting to
15:20get really complicated for you
15:24historians tell stories they tell
15:25stories based on primary sources all
15:28historical questions have to be answered
15:30by arguments based on primary sources
15:32maybe that's the best way to say it and
15:34then once you realize that then you
15:37start to see all the incredible problems
15:41with primary
15:43sources there's tons of them I can only
15:45give you a few first of all if you study
15:49ancient history there's simply not
15:50enough there's too few there's too
15:55little I could give lots of examples but
15:59if you've ever studied anything in
16:00ancient
16:02history we know there are things that
16:05are referred to in ancient texts but we
16:08can't and so we know they
16:10existed but that but you can't verify it
16:13because there's not enough sources they
16:15don't exist maybe I'll put it like this
16:18way over thousands of years it's kind of
16:20a histor it's kind of an
16:22accident some things survive obviously
16:25some things were destroyed by fire or um
16:28sources is disintegrated over time they
16:32were
16:33destroyed um new things are discovered
16:37new caches of primary sources are
16:39discovered in the sand
16:42sometimes and so that means let's say
16:45we're always
16:47wondering what was there that we don't
16:49know about and we always have to live
16:51with that anyway I could talk about that
16:53for a long time and probably give better
16:55examples but I'm more interested in
16:58modern history so the printing presses
17:00invite invented in 1450 and by 1500 you
17:04know the printing presses are maybe not
17:08on every continent but they're all over
17:10the place by around 1500 and there's
17:13cheap paper and I could talk about this
17:16for a long time too
17:18but any historian knows that now there's
17:20too many sources and then you move into
17:22the Modern Age and in the 19th century
17:25everybody had a printing press and so or
17:27the historian practic speaking we're
17:29talking about archives that are just
17:31stuffed full
17:33of data those facts right and anybody
17:38that's honest that's ever been to a big
17:40archive will tell you there are things
17:43in there that nobody has ever seen and
17:46who knows what they are they might you
17:49might have to rewrite the textbook if
17:51somebody actually found some of the
17:52documents in there and so I'll tell you
17:55something about that a little
17:57secret is like I don't like when
17:59historians pretend to be objective
18:03because nobody ever goes to it let's say
18:06it another way when you're a historian
18:08and you have two weeks in the
18:11archive you always go there looking for
18:16something you don't waste your time
18:18there you're looking for something and
18:20this is what people talk about it they
18:21call it confirmation bias right like we
18:25as humans always seem to find the
18:26evidence we're looking for to prove our
18:28Point don't we
18:30now
18:31um well let me add something to that too
18:34that you should
18:37know that I think historians talk about
18:41and know about when you have masses of
18:43information like an
18:46archive somebody arranged all of
18:50that and when they arranged it what they
18:53did I've talked to archives I know it
18:56like they it's people disc it and argue
18:59over it what you do is you organize the
19:01material and you say this is important
19:03and this is not and there you can't
19:05avoid doing that and so when you go to
19:08the archive you don't look at every
19:10document you get a list a catalog of
19:14what's in the archive and the way that's
19:16organized influences things that you
19:19look
19:21at by the way I would just add that's
19:24exactly what happens with internet
19:26searches
19:28they are not neutral they're biased and
19:32subjective somebody somehow through an
19:35algorithm organizes what is thought to
19:38be important and what is thought not to
19:40be important and by the way AI does this
19:44on
19:46steroids somebody somewhere or something
19:49is organizing the information so that
19:51what you see is what they or it thinks
19:55are is
19:56important anyway I could go on forever
20:00but the next problem we have I have to
20:02be a little quicker don't I is
20:05evaluating sources and this this is a
20:08lot of what historians do and it gets
20:11really
20:13complicated so the very most fundamental
20:16level you can't just believe everything
20:17you
20:19read people lie people lie in
20:22Publications people lie in private
20:24correspondence and lying is really
20:26complicated because people don't always
20:27lie they say they think is true based on
20:30the evidence that they have but it turns
20:32out to be wrong they're
20:35misinformed people contradict each other
20:38if sources different sources just
20:41because you find it in it's all it's
20:44exciting to go in the archive and read
20:46manuscripts private correspondence to
20:48people and you but it doesn't mean you
20:50believe it you have to somehow
20:52critically
20:54evaluated and that's incredibly
20:56complicated as well and I won't even and
20:59I just want to introduce you to it and
21:01let you know about the problem and then
21:04understanding the sources so if you
21:06really go on a quest to answer a
21:08historical question you have to go all
21:10the way to the primary sources and some
21:12of those are going to be easy like a
21:14book like this one that I showed you
21:16some of them are going to be really hard
21:18like the manuscripts that I've shown you
21:21and you're going to run into foreign
21:23languages and um you're going to run
21:26into destroyed manuscripts that or
21:29burned in a fire or manuscripts that
21:32there's a big hole in the middle of it
21:33and you can't read part of
21:36it I have a a friend who's an archivist
21:39and I I remember looking in a manuscript
21:42from the 16th century and I remember him
21:45looking at it like this and look a
21:47professional archivist trying to figure
21:49out what the manuscript says because the
21:51handwriting is hard to
21:53read and then you're not only using
21:56sometimes exotic languages but exotic
21:59dialects so that the people who speak
22:01those languages don't even understand
22:03some of the phrases and then you're also
22:05when you look at sources you're jumping
22:08into a different culture that's gone
22:11people are dead and they have all kinds
22:13of code words and jokes and innuendos
22:16that and they talk about things that we
22:18don't know anything about and don't make
22:19any sense to us it's like anthropology
22:21it's an exotic culture that you don't
22:23know and so and then you have the
22:26problem of two historians can read the
22:27same source and come to different
22:29conclusions even with published sources
22:31let alone
22:34manuscripts I just want to introduce you
22:36right I
22:37said the
22:39physicist we don't know what the hell
22:42physicists do and I'm trying to tell you
22:44people don't know what the hell
22:46historians do do they this is how you
22:49get your
22:50facts that you think are so certain
22:58so primary sources let me just
23:03recapitulate historians tell
23:05stories they're not any kind of stories
23:08they're stories based
23:09on they have to be based on the Critical
23:12examination of primary sources all
23:14historical questions have to be answered
23:16with primary
23:17sources primary sources are full of
23:20problems and ambiguity and places for
23:23error and confirmation bias and
23:26mistakes and that's how you get those
23:29things that you think are such certain
23:30historical facts that's the way that's
23:32the story behind it now there's
23:35secondary
23:37sources what are secondary sources
23:40secondary sources are basically
23:43historians telling stories based on
23:45primary sources these are the books you
23:48buy about
23:50history they're historians telling
23:52stories based on Prim the Critical
23:55examination of primary sources
24:01some are very good so I want to start
24:05there this is an old book I'm kind of
24:07embarrassed I never read it a friend
24:09told me about it battlecry of Freedom
24:11it's about the American Civil War can't
24:13put it down it's a wonderful history
24:15book you should read it from the
24:181980s I love the works of Eric Hobs bom
24:22age of extremes but he wrote many great
24:24books I love Eric HSB great writer great
24:27historian
24:29I love the work of Fran Deeter
24:31on I like Frank Deeter as a person I
24:34don't know ince on podcasts this
24:38book's very well written very
24:40interesting about a topic most of us Ms
24:42Great Famine there's a Trilogy on Miles
24:45communist
24:46China to blow your mind it's great
24:49history secondary sources these are
24:52mostly professional historians who tell
24:54us stories by piecing together and
24:57critically examin
24:59the primary sources some are very good
25:03um and I'll recommend them some are
25:06dreadfully boring and I've literally
25:09thrown some of them across the room in
25:11anger I want to be fair to my historical
25:15colleagues just think about how hard it
25:18is and I don't want to be a complainer
25:21but all those things that I just told
25:24you you have to have all those skills
25:26and that's a lot of work it takes a lot
25:29of very precise detail oriented
25:35thinking and the kind of people that can
25:37do that are a lot of times not the kind
25:39of people who can write beautiful
25:42Pros to put all of that
25:46together
25:47fantastic historical
25:50research
25:51plus
25:53exciting captivating Pros that's art
25:58that really is Art to put it together in
26:01a story that is interesting for and
26:04meaningful to as many people as possible
26:06that becomes a New York Times bestseller
26:08like books by
26:11brocker that's an art and by the way I
26:13do believe history is an art that
26:15requires a lot of
26:18creativity and I respect and admire
26:20those
26:22historians that can do
26:25it and I don't like the historians that
26:27comp playing nobody ever listens to me
26:33um I haven't written a New York Times
26:35bestseller so I'm at the bottom end but
26:38I'm not jealous I'm respectful of the
26:41historians that are able to do that good
26:43for them they deserve to be famous and
26:45make lots of
26:46money because it's a It's Magic it's an
26:51art anyway next we get to
26:55textbooks I think we're done with oh I
26:58need to say one more thing
27:01about secondary sources historical
27:05questions cannot be answered by
27:07secondary
27:09sources historical questions are
27:11answered by primary
27:13sources they're not answered you don't
27:15get the answer by reading a good
27:17secondary source it's not the final
27:19answer and I need to tell you this
27:21historians in the secondary sources they
27:24disagree with each
27:25other strongly they sometimes they read
27:28exactly the same primary sources and
27:30disagree about them you need to know
27:32that it's not a list of certain
27:36facts it's a it's arguments based on
27:39primary sources about which different
27:42historians disagree strongly sometimes
27:44about very fundamental things now we can
27:47move on to textbooks notice something
27:49with textbooks we're now what two steps
27:52away from primary
27:55sources so the way you answer historical
27:57questions is primary
27:59sources you take a step further away and
28:02you read secondary sources and now you
28:04go one step further away and you're in
28:06textbooks and that's important to
28:08understand because of the irony of how
28:10and also University classes like the
28:12kind I
28:16teach it's it's important to understand
28:18that because of the irony about how
28:19people think of textbooks in University
28:22classes people think of the textbook as
28:25the authoritative answer
28:28as the end of the quest right you're in
28:30an argument and you look it up in the
28:33textbook and get the answer and that's
28:35the
28:37end you've got the wrong idea of
28:40textbooks and classes too what the
28:42professor said textbooks and the classes
28:45you take in University are the
28:48beginning not the
28:51end they're where you start the quest
28:55and you know textbooks usually are are
28:58written by a bunch of historians who
28:59write secondary sources so a lot of
29:02times they're telling you about current
29:04trends in historical interpretation so
29:06they're about the secondary sources so
29:08the textbooks have a bibliography and
29:10they take you to the secondary sources
29:12and the secondary sources have a
29:13bibliography and they take you to the
29:15archive and that's where you answer your
29:19questions I don't even know for sure why
29:21we need textbooks anymore because we
29:23have the
29:26internet in fact a lot of text what you
29:28can probably find for free on the
29:29internet and I'm okay with
29:32that I know probably a lot of I know
29:36this will shock probably a lot of
29:39professional academics but I'm a fan of
29:43Wikipedia I go to Wikipedia all the
29:46time because I know what it is it's the
29:49beginning
29:51place it's not that I use it for
29:54authoritative answers I don't know if
29:56authoritative answers really exist
29:58anyway
30:00but it's a place where I read about it
30:03I'm skeptical I go down to the
30:05biblography and I follow the links and
30:08sometimes I end up with primary sources
30:10you can that can happen from Wikipedia
30:12so I'm not against
30:13it I also want to say I really like
30:16textbooks I know that sounds like it
30:18contradicts what I just said but there's
30:20some great textbooks I actually think
30:24some of my favorite textbooks are old I
30:27love this one I used it a lot when I
30:29started teaching the history of
30:31Europe I think it's from originally from
30:351949 it's got wonderful
30:38maps you can see I've outlined things
30:41and used them it's a it's a reference
30:44you look things up there you look at the
30:46maps it's organized as an outline
30:49there's a great
30:50index that's to me what textbooks and
30:53also the internet are for some of them
30:55are great and University classes like
30:57the kind of I teach there's starting
31:00points where we try to break things down
31:02and make them simple and introduce you
31:04to some of the arguments for it
31:07against but it's never the answer to win
31:10an
31:11argument I don't know if you can ever
31:13really win an argument I think people
31:16should concentrate Less on that and just
31:18presenting Arguments for what they think
31:20and seeing what other people think but
31:21I'm
31:22getting ahead of
31:25myself so textbooks and univers
31:27University classes are
31:30not we can just recapitulate
31:34here all historical questions have to be
31:37answered in primary sources secondary
31:39sources are historians telling us a
31:42story based on their Critical
31:44examination of the primary sources
31:46textbooks are the farthest removed from
31:49the possible answer to the question
31:52they're the farthest away you can get
31:53from it they're not the authoritative
31:55answer they're the place you go when you
31:58know nothing and you'd like to
32:00start and then you follow the chains or
32:03in modern follow the bibliographies or
32:05in modern terminology follow the
32:08links we'll probably take you off the
32:10internet to an archive in the end
32:12but I think you get the
32:16point okay I hope that I've demolished
32:21that naive belief that history is this
32:25list of indisputable facts
32:29now you know hopefully where the facts
32:31come from so-called
32:35facts
32:37so in the
32:40end I don't believe
32:44there's students always ask me when they
32:46write their papers they always say do
32:47you want my subjective personal
32:51opinion and I always say well there's
32:53nothing
32:54else what else is there there's no such
32:58nobody ever wrote any history without
33:01their own subjective
33:05interpretation it doesn't
33:08exist the minute you choose your topic
33:11you immediately said I think this is
33:13important and I think this is not
33:14important out of the Infinity of things
33:16you could have written about you chose
33:18this and not this and that's your
33:21subjective Choice that's not
33:24neutral and by the way I think there's
33:26absolutely no way to never Escape that
33:28problem I think what we should do is
33:29embrace it anyway I'm getting ahead of
33:32myself let
33:33me some of you may still be skeptical
33:36you may still think there must be some
33:38objective historical
33:43facts maybe the most objective thing you
33:47could think of is the
33:48date we put it on everything right now
33:52it's
33:552024 you just we all accept it's just
33:582024 you can't question that it's just
34:00an objective
34:01fact you know it's not have you ever
34:05thought about why it's
34:072024 well it's because some monks in the
34:09Middle Ages decided that all of history
34:11should be organized around the birth of
34:15Jesus and so year zero should be the
34:17year that they thought Jesus was born
34:19and in English we use BC before Christ
34:23do basically after
34:26Christ and all of history for all of us
34:29whether you like it or not whether
34:30you're Muslim or Chinese or
34:33communist all of history is organized
34:35around the birth of Jesus and you
34:37acknowledge a Christian interpretation
34:39of History every time you write the date
34:40on a piece of
34:43paper and now you probably think well
34:46but that's no big deal he's just being
34:50silly well I can show you examples of
34:54times in history when it was a big deal
34:58there have been arguments about what
35:02should year one be and I think now you
35:06know there's a lot of possibilities it
35:08could be for Muslims it could be the
35:10Christian year
35:13622 but let's get really
35:15revolutionary the French
35:18Revolution there were people in the
35:20French reev by the any book you pick up
35:22any secondary source you pick up on the
35:24French Revolution you'll see the
35:25historians talking about Year One it's
35:281792 the founding of the French
35:33Republic why is that because they some
35:37of the people in the French Revolution
35:38it's complicated but they wanted to
35:40throw out they were
35:43offended by the fact that all of history
35:47was organized around a Christian
35:49interpretation and they wanted to throw
35:50that out and get rid of it and they
35:52wanted history to be organized to R the
35:54founding of their Republicans so they
35:56said this is the New Year One and they
35:57also reorganized all the months and all
35:59the
36:01days because they didn't want it to be
36:04Christian and that's not the only time
36:06the Bolsheviks did it in
36:081917 and by the way you probably know
36:11there's also a difference between the
36:12Orthodox calendar in the Latin calendar
36:15which is a different thing it's older
36:17but the Bolshevik said year one is the
36:20year of the Bolshevik Revolution because
36:22we don't we're seriously don't want to
36:24accept a Christian interpretation of
36:26History
36:28a lot of you are probably chist not
36:30Christian why do you accept the
36:32Christian interpretation of History 1975
36:36the chamir ruse year one is
36:421975
36:45so even something
36:48as plain and simple and obvious as the
36:53date that you think is it's just an
36:55objective fact
36:59it's not an objective
37:01fact it's
37:04actually the
37:06result of something very important and
37:08serious the Christian view of history
37:11that dominates Us in some ways to this
37:13day is almost inescapable and some
37:16people are very upset about
37:18that
37:21anyway my point isn't to argue against
37:24the Christian interpretation history is
37:26to make the point about the subjectivity
37:29of everything that you think is so
37:34objective anyway I want to finish here
37:38because I've thought about this a lot
37:39and I hope I don't get
37:42too technical here for you
37:45but I've thought about this a lot
37:50because it happens periodically these
37:53controversies about history flare up in
37:56public discourse
37:58notice people get really
38:02upset when somebody
38:05questions what are considered to be the
38:08indisputable facts of history people get
38:10certain things people get really
38:13angry people just want history to be one
38:17way and not the other way and they're
38:20terrified of somebody who comes along
38:22and questions
38:26it and I kind of understand why and so I
38:29have kind of a big explanation for this
38:31it's gets kind of political
38:34but historical writing periodically is
38:37the center of incredibly
38:41vitriolic
38:44disputes and so why is that
38:49um I think people
38:53have a longing for certainty
39:00I re I love the essay by VAV hav power
39:03of the powerless havell was a famous
39:06dissident in communist Czechoslovakia
39:08it's written under C in a totalitarian
39:10state he later became the first
39:12president of the Czech
39:14Republic the essay is about a lot of
39:16things I'm going to just pick about one
39:18there's one piece of it that I'm going
39:20to use here and he says you know people
39:22have a longing for certainty and I kind
39:24of and maybe it's innate I don't know
39:26but I think it's
39:27maybe almost Universal we and I think
39:30it's not bad it makes it drives us to
39:32ask questions and try to answer
39:35them and again this could get really
39:37complicated I'm trying to keep it simple
39:39but and it has a lot to do with history
39:42people have a longing to be certain they
39:45want certain facts in history and they
39:47don't want to let go of them and they
39:49don't want them to be challenged and
39:50they get really angry and I think it
39:52comes from Fear honestly but people get
39:54really really angry when you challenge
39:56what they consider be certain facts of
39:58history and so and and I don't think
40:01that's all I'm not I want to say I kind
40:04of understand it too I think it's I
40:07don't like to say human nature but it's
40:08ubiquitous in human history let's say
40:10that we long for certainty and so the
40:14question is how do we deal with that I I
40:17have my own subjective opinion about how
40:19to deal with that I think one Way's
40:20right the other way is one ways better
40:22and one ways worse and I think hav you
40:25know remember he's writing the
40:27totalitarian communist block I've lived
40:30in the postcommunist countries for the
40:32last 20 years so I'm interested in it
40:35and he says well what that totalitarian
40:38system does for people is that
40:41it satisfies their longing for
40:44certainty like going to church he says
40:46and reciting rituals you might think
40:49it's dumb but it also makes a lot of
40:51people feel good and by the way I kind
40:53of understand that I'm not totally
40:55critical of that it makes people feel
40:56good so when it comes to history and the
41:00way history is written in totalitarian
41:03and authoritarian societies is really
41:06interesting there has to be one right
41:09Orthodox way to say
41:11it and
41:14so you can give certainty to
41:17people and you do it in a authoritarian
41:21let's say communist block countries you
41:22do it by having Elite experts they all
41:26have the right degrees and they went to
41:28the right universities and they're
41:30approved to tell you what's true and
41:32what's
41:34not and if you really want certainty and
41:38I think history itself shows this you
41:43have political power that stands behind
41:46the experts so a certain group of
41:48approved
41:49historians tells you what's true and
41:51what's not they approve certain books
41:53and articles and disapprove others and
41:56if you think about the world in which
41:57havell lived it was pretty
42:00civil like you if you were a historian
42:02and you challenged The Narrative you
42:05lost your job and you had to be a truck
42:08driver but hidden behind that of course
42:12is police power political
42:14power you really did see that in the
42:161950s let's say before Stalin died or
42:19the 1940s then it was raw power but by
42:22the 1970s there's political power that
42:24stands behind that
42:27well you lose your job
42:30because behind that there's a political
42:33party that controls the country and
42:34ultimately they have the
42:37guns that's ultimately why it happens
42:40you don't see all of that it's not that
42:42raw violence but it is in some
42:45regimes but it's political power that
42:48stands behind an
42:51elite group of experts who decide what's
42:56true and what's false I'm going on too
42:57long about this but so I've worked my
43:00whole life in post in the postcommunist
43:02Czech Republic and I have a lot of
43:04students that say I hated history it's
43:06just
43:08memorization that's what it is when you
43:11have the truth and you have the Orthodox
43:14interpretation of history and it's just
43:16true and you can't question it all there
43:19is to do is memorize it and when you
43:22write a paper you just cite the
43:23authorities you don't question
43:25them is that that's all you have like
43:28what's there to talk
43:31about in this world
43:36there's there's dissidents like bsel
43:39Pell he wasn't a historian but there
43:40were some dissident historians as well
43:43they're labeled usually in the Communist
43:44world they're called fascists and shut
43:46up the power is used to do
43:51that people have a good feeling because
43:55they open the history textbook and it's
43:57all
43:59true I also feel that that's arrogance
44:03some of these will make more sense when
44:04I talk about open Society but I feel
44:07it's produces an incredibly arrogant
44:09view of History completely ignores all
44:12the subjectivity that goes into all the
44:15decisions that are made about what's
44:16true and what's false and it's a world
44:19in which there's only answers there's no
44:21questions it's really quite boring by
44:23the way I would say like I feel like
44:26Christian fundamental ISM works on a
44:28very similar way in a very similar way
44:31right we have all the answers into so
44:33what's there to discuss and in fact
44:35asking questions is kind of not
44:39permitted why would you ask questions
44:41you already have the
44:43truth I'm going on too long and I need
44:45to end
44:48but I'll just say I find it very
44:51difficult to have conversations with
44:52people who already have think they know
44:54all the truth they have all the facts
44:58those people don't really want to have a
45:01conversation with
45:03you why would there be a conversation if
45:05you already know all the facts what's
45:07there to
45:09discuss and so it's very hard to have
45:11any kind of discussion in that sort of
45:13world
45:14anyway that longing for certainty that's
45:18one way to answer it and by the way it
45:20kind of works I'm sorry to say for a lot
45:23of people it's it kind of
45:25works I don't think it works in the long
45:27run and I don't think I'm going to
45:30explain why here but I think in the long
45:33run it's a trap that leads people to
45:36make terrible
45:41mistakes now I've thought a lot about
45:43historical writing and historical facts
45:46and historical narrative you can see
45:48I've thought a lot about
45:50it so I want to do a contrast here but
45:53also notice I put these arrows here I
45:55actually think it's a scale
46:00I
46:01think I don't think historians writing
46:05in communist block countries let's put
46:07it this way I don't think all critical
46:09thought was always blocked
46:11out I think sometimes it made it through
46:14in various ways and I
46:16think not all I think some societies
46:19lean toward authoritarianism but it
46:21doesn't necessarily mean they're like
46:23the Communist block countries are Nazi
46:25Germany
46:27and I think on the other side I like
46:29Carl poppers but I like his word open
46:32societies I really like that I think
46:34that's the best way to describe it I
46:36would say for the most part that's the
46:37world I grew up in and came up in as a
46:43historian I do think at times there's
46:45kind of authoritarianism there I do
46:48think there's an Elite Class even in the
46:51world of
46:54history we kind of take them as reliable
46:58some of them I think deserve their
46:59position some of them
47:01don't I don't think they're all
47:03authoritarians I don't want to say that
47:06I get I showed you some books that I
47:07think are I think those are
47:10great Elite authorities on their
47:12subjects but there's a kind of
47:14authoritarianism even in open societies
47:16you'll have historians will say I never
47:18heard of that guy he works at a
47:21community
47:23college yeah that's that's snobbish
47:25authoritarianism
47:27but I think there's a difference As you
47:29move toward the open society and I have
47:31to be fair this is the world I think I
47:33mostly came up
47:38in even the most snobbish snobbish
47:42Elites well I don't want to say that but
47:44most of even the most even the elites
47:46and some of them are great
47:49historians they know they have a sense
47:53that they will not be believed just
47:55because of who they are right like you
47:57have to make arguments and you have to
47:59be reflective and you have to do
48:00critical research in other words to make
48:02a contrast history is not just
48:05mization it's critical research and
48:08whenever you do critical research
48:10whenever you go out of Fontes back to
48:12the primary sources you can always get
48:15it's dangerous you can always get
48:18different
48:19answers every time you go
48:23back and also in the world that I came
48:26up
48:27in there were always dangerous
48:30Challengers to the mainline
48:37narrative that's always been
48:39true I think with the
48:42Internet it's more maybe provocative but
48:45it's always been
48:46true there's always been the historian
48:50that nobody ever heard of for years that
48:52comes out and writes a brilliant book
48:54that challenges usually Outsiders tend
48:56to challenge The Narrative the people
48:58who haven't made a great income their
49:01whole lives and nobody ever heard of
49:03these days the internet promotes
49:06that I'm all
49:09for podcast
49:13historians why shouldn't they they have
49:16expressed their ideas they might be
49:17interesting I actually
49:19think and there's I think
49:23some philosophy and research that
49:25illustrates this sometimes being an
49:28outsider promotes
49:30creativity and critical
49:33thinking it's kind of different
49:36when well I won't elaborate on that
49:38anymore but I'm all for the podcast the
49:42the Oddball
49:43podcast guy I
49:45don't like being um a challenger and an
49:49outsider doesn't make you right you
49:51might be in a complete nut
49:54job but it doesn't rule you out
49:58either and so I think in the open
50:01Society I think that's good for history
50:03and history historical
50:06interpretation I think that I already
50:09said this I think that that already
50:11means there will be competing
50:13interpretations of History I think
50:15that's the world I grew up in I had
50:16wonderful I had a history class once
50:19where it was about the American
50:21Revolutionary War and the professor one
50:24week came in and gave a lecture
50:28arguing for one hypothesis and the next
50:31week he came in and gave a lecture
50:33arguing for the opposite hypothesis it
50:36was brilliant we used to have textbooks
50:39that provide presented opposing views
50:42one
50:44essay says one View and then the you get
50:47it the other the next essay is the
50:49opposite and sometimes it was really
50:50great there were three opposing views
50:52imagine that
50:54two could be an infinity of opposing
50:57views a lot of people don't like that
51:00for people that are my personal view is
51:04really
51:06insecure they need a certain narrative
51:09that can't
51:11change but in an open
51:14Society I think it's inevitable that in
51:17history you're going to always have
51:18competing narratives as I said every
51:20time you go back to the
51:22sources anything can
51:25happen anything can
51:28happen I think and by the way I am
51:32biased and I have a personal opinion
51:34about this I def I lean very much toward
51:36open
51:38societies I think that produces good
51:41stimulating interesting
51:45history I do think in the end it cures
51:48your longing for certainty more than the
51:51phony reputation of ritualistic
51:54Orthodoxy but it also produces humility
51:58as opposed to arrogance I think the
52:01people that think they have all the
52:03answers and that it's all
52:05solved that's incredibly arrogant like
52:08you said you can't have a conversation
52:09with such a person you must must
52:12approach history I think all Scholars
52:14should be back with a sense of humility
52:17and we're endlessly asking questions I
52:22personally love that
52:26there's no in a totalitarian or
52:29authoritarian world there's no reason to
52:31ask any
52:33questions there's no reason to study
52:35anything because you have all the
52:36answers you just memorize them and
52:38ultimately it's boring and unsatisfying
52:40I've seen thousands of thousands of
52:41students that are the products of that
52:43kind
52:44of you know now we're a long time after
52:47communism in Central Europe
52:49but it's boring and that's what so many
52:53people say to me history is boring well
52:54of course it's boring
52:57it's I hate to say it it's kind of
53:01like church like church can be great I
53:03think actually
53:06but it's not interesting to have all the
53:10answers because good scholarship is
53:14based on asking questions in history
53:16questions about primary
53:18source
53:20I'm over time and I need to
53:23finish but I'll say this because I
53:26started I've thought a lot about this
53:28and I've thought about it in terms of
53:30historical writing and again I'll come
53:32back to what I was saying people long
53:34for
53:37certainty and I kind of understand that
53:40and that's
53:42why they get so upset when somebody
53:46questions what they think are the
53:48certain facts of
53:50History I hope after this lecture though
53:53you can see why I think those certain
53:55facts of History are impossible I hope
53:58you see where they come from
54:00now when you really see what a historian
54:04does all historians have all historical
54:08questions have to be answered in primary
54:10sources and when you see all the
54:12problems that come from
54:14that you start to see that there can my
54:18personal view is there in historical
54:20argumentation I don't think there's any
54:21such thing as
54:23certainty and I know that's disturbing
54:25for people
54:27but let me end with this I agree I very
54:31much influenced by the thinking of Carl
54:32popper by the
54:34way this is the what I've experienced
54:36personally and maybe it'll help you
54:38because I do
54:39think
54:41uncertainty is a problem for us I do
54:44think I don't think you can just I don't
54:45think I can walk away and just say well
54:48well you have to live with uncertainty I
54:49don't think I can do that so let me
54:51explain my
54:54experience doesn't happen too often
54:57anymore
54:58but when you're in a
55:01discussion and you have two people that
55:03are really humble and not arrogant and
55:08really willing to have a
55:09discussion and person a says I think
55:13this this is what I think I don't know
55:15for certain but this is what I
55:17think and then they say and here's three
55:20to five reasons why I think
55:23that and you listen to it and you think
55:25wow this is really
55:28convincing and then you have person B
55:30and again it's a humble person who
55:32really wants to have a discussion and
55:33person B says I disagree with person a
55:36here's what I
55:38think here's three to five reasons why I
55:41think it and then I think wow person B
55:44really had a good
55:46argument and I'm I don't know the answer
55:49do I but I'll tell
55:53you I have never walked out of a discuss
55:56like that knowing less than I did when I
55:59came
56:00in in other words the end result of that
56:03is not me being
56:05Dumber right I don't have absolute
56:08certainty from God what's the answer but
56:10I know a hell of a lot more than I did
56:12at the beginning I have a
56:15foundation I have something I know a
56:18bunch of facts if you want to call them
56:20that that each person presented and I
56:22know what the different arguments are I
56:24can see the weaknesses and the strengths
56:25of each one and I'm infinitely stronger
56:28than what I was it than I was at the
56:30beginning I've never ever walked out of
56:32a situation like that in situations like
56:34that are unfortunately increasingly rare
56:36I've never walked out of a situation
56:38like that feeling like I know less than
56:42I did at the beginning I always know
56:44more and I always feel stronger
56:46intellectually stronger so I want to
56:49really encourage
56:52you not to fall for the absolutes of
56:56authoritarian answer it's a quick fix
56:59it'll make you feel good like a
57:01drug it's not the real
57:04thing
57:05you I know I like I said I can't just
57:09walk away and say oh you have to be
57:10uncertain
57:12okay your longing for certainty is a
57:15good thing in a way but you know in
57:18another way you don't have to feel
57:20absolutely certain about
57:23anything you'll feel better
57:27if you can listen to a conversation and
57:29hear each side and weigh the supposed
57:33facts on both sides we their strengths
57:35and weaknesses and we the strengths and
57:38weaknesses of each argument that's what
57:41I want for my students that's why I give
57:43this lecture about history called
57:46stories about the past
57:50historians in the end we just tell you
57:54stories about the past hopefully now you
57:57know something about the art of doing
58:01that thank you for your attention

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Stories About the Past I 2024 by Mark Brandon, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,337 words across 1,348 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.