"Instant" History and "Dead Man" History

I decided start this one based on a tangent in Tom's reply to a comment of mine.

To explain the title: there are a number of schools of historical writing and analysis. Most are a blend of techniques, but there are those who rely more on the written record (the "dead man" school) and those who put more stock in first-person reports and interviews (the "instant" school). It should also be mentioned that both styles can easily be manipulated but individuals who are writing just to confirm their own theories (self-fulfilling history, as it were).

Personally, I'm more of a "mixer" in that I believe strongly in the value of oral history, but also like to see it confirmed in some way through written records. Records can lie, but so can people. Memories fade, perspectives change, and documents get lost or shredded.

Since so much of small wars theory is based on individuals and small units, I thought it might be interesting to toss this out and see what comes up in terms of favored historical techniques or approaches.

Hi Steve,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Since so much of small wars theory is based on individuals and small units, I thought it might be interesting to toss this out and see what comes up in terms of favored historical techniques or approaches.

---

As you know, I've been following the same thread. I will freely admit that I am not an historian, although I have read a fair amount of history (mainly ancient history). I have always been partial to the microhistorical school coming out of Carlo Ginzburg's work. I first came across his work when I was working on my MA and I read the Night Battles and Ecstacies. Absolutely brilliant in my opinion.

Still and all, I think that his work has some excellent applications in the study of small wars - especially in attempts to reconstruct the "losers" side. I was particularly impressed with the concept of Gizburg's Razor - "All else being equal, the scenario / interpretation that requires the fewest amount of additional hypotheses is the most plausible". Then again, both Ginzburg and I do tend to deal with periods where it is hard to interview people :D.

Marc

with a bow towards Sir William I assume.
JHR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JHR

with a bow towards Sir William I assume.
JHR

---

But of course :D.

Marc

Steve Blair or anybody for that knows for that matter. I read in the original Small Wars Manual that they required that a daily operations log be kept. Does anybody know if those still exists? That would be some interesting reading:)

I would assume that they do (at least in some form and most likely incomplete), but the problem lies in finding them. The Marine Corps does a good job of preserving its history (warts and all), but the nature of their involvements in Latin America means that those logs could be just about anywhere. The Marine Corps Historical Center (or the new museum) might be able to help you there.

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm more of a "mixer" in that I believe strongly in the value of oral history, but also like to see it confirmed in some way through written records. Records can lie, but so can people. Memories fade, perspectives change, and documents get lost or shredded.

---

I go for the mix as a historian; that is one of the reasons I enjoy contemporary work. I also found that as I delved more into contempoary history, research and writing, I sharpened my skills as an intelligence operator and analyst. That is to say, looking at a body of evidence, developing leads, and seeking underlying meanings.

As for records, diaries, etc, I encourage EVERYONE to maintain some form of log, diary, email folder or whatever. I have heard some historians dismiss memoirs as "war stories" because they are personal and by defintion from a certain perspective--hopefully that of the supposed author (in this day of the Ghost Writers on the Storm). But as a historian, perspectives and even spin on perspective is an indicator and a message. An indicator that there may be other perspectives out there and a message that the historian needs to look further.

In my case, a historian reviewing my memors was generally positive but threw in a phrase about me not trying to "hide or rise above" my "peculiar world prespective". I found that most curious; why would someone wish to hide their perspective in a memoir as a memoir is by definition a statement of individual perspective? Hopefully--and this has already happened even before the book was finalized--my memoir will encourage historians to look at a subject in a different light.

Since Stan Reber is now on here as an active member, many of you are getting to know him--at least as a commentator. If you read my memoirs on Op Support Hope, our contribution to the effort--and especially Stan's work on airlift--was absolutely critical. But if you look at the official records of Op Support Hope, we are not mentioned.

Best

Tom

I'm glad to see you bring that up, Tom. I recently became involved in an exchange on-line with a historian, over OIF I. His position was that the things which I witnessed could not have happened, because they are not listed in the "official history". The official historian has passed away, and left his draft, and this historian was attempting to complete the history.

Not to speak ill of the dead, but the "history" as written, was a rah rah puff piece, with the majority of the "bones" of the piece formed by interviews over a year later of a shockingly small number of folks who, to a great extent, had skeletons to hide. The incidents/happenings I experienced were historically "un-happened." I think most historians would be surprised at how unmotivated and ill-informed the guy keeping the operational logs are as well.

BTW, the point that I made, which started the internet "food-fight" was how incredibly uncoordinated the initial invasion really was. 3ID had one idea of how it was to go, the CSS folks had another, and the MEF had yet another idea of what "Commander's Intent" consisted of.

I look at "Official Histories" in a completely different light, now.

These reports are always pretty sketchy and minimalist at best. I think it would be difficult to decipher the one I filed, as XO of a rifle company, after an attack in Vietnam where among other injuries I had was a severed ulnar nerve in my right arm from a wound that was gushing blood, not to mention the loss of use of half my hand I was using for "writing" the report. While about half dozen of us were medevacted, the result of the attack was fortunately of little historical note.

Just remeber, many, if not most historians like to claim that history, as a field of study, is objective. But history tells us that history tends to be subjective. Oral history is good because it gives the events a human feel although it may not be entirely accurate. Likewise, official histories are good as well to present unbaised (not always though) facts, but tends to be just that: facts; which, depending on whose reading it may find just the facts dry or exciting.

There are actually a variety of schools of thought regarding history's "objectivity" or "subjectivity." I don't have my theory books in front of me, but the "objective" or scientific school of thought is mostly German in origin, while the majority of what were called "post-modern" historians (read from about 1992 or so on) consider history to be subjective in the extreme. Oddly, many of these same people also claim to have the "one true" story in their clutches.:wry:

I subscribe to a more balanced theory in that parts of history can be objective, while other parts are certainly subjective and can be examined from a number of perspectives. This calls for a blending of techniques and theories, such as merging oral history with a review of existing records to serve as a basic accuracy check. This means taking the "official history" and combining it with 120mm's recollections and those of others to come up with a more complete picture. Note that I do not say "true" picture, because I don't think that is possible for anyone to accomplish.

All of this has a great deal to do with small wars in that most of them involve a variety of perceptions and often have a great deal of historical background. You need to understand the basics of history so that you can evaluate the information you're given as background. But I may now be straying into Marc's magical relativism plane....:eek:

History on my accounting is an understanding of "deeds done." In order to gain this understanding we need to do a whole lot more than look at written records and/or listen to verbal commentary. We can and should also include physical evidence which we gain by visiting (actually, or virtually) the site where the deed was done to collect data as well. (I hope this last brings to mind such endeavors as archeology and forensics.)
This should sound familiar to those of us who have done good ops planning. Not only did we get our intel types to give us a terrain analysis briefing and a corresponding overlay (the written and oral record). We also did our own terrain walks or looked at as much imagery as we could get our hads on (the physical faccts), right?
I recommend R.G. Collingwood's The Idea of History to all as a proposal for how to view history as an objective study. It is somewhat difficult to accept this as Collingwood's objective view since it was a pastiche of stuff dragged together after his death by his literary executor. Still, he talks about the problem of "cut and paste" history--just looking at the documentary record to determine what happened in the past. He propposes, instead, a theory of history based on reenactment. While it is very hard to explain exactly what this entails, he suggest that "good" history actually reenacts the events as they occurred in the mind of the original historical actor. To understand Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon is to reenact it.. Collingwood seems to think that we can each do this objectively.
(As an aside, Collingwood was a chairford professor in philosophy, did archeology field work on Roman British sites, and did intel work for the Brits during WWI.)