Branham 1

Makayla Branham

Professor Daniels

HIS 398

April 29, 2024

Changes in History

When reviewing the text, I noticed several changes that have occurred over the past

century. To begin with, a noticeable change in perspective has occurred. Overall historians

throughout the century have tried to push for marginalized voices and diverse perspectives to

change the way we look at historical narratives. Some examples of these marginalized voices

include women, minorities, Native American people, the working class, and more. Another

noticeable change is the globalization of history. Several historians have moved to study the

broader picture rather than just individual nations or regions, they now try and focus on the

global scale of history. This can involve examining transitional movements, global processes that

have shaped larger and smaller societies, and examining interconnectedness.

When looking at the previous changes you can see a major connection between the two.

As for the idea that a different voice should be heard, historians noticed an isolated perspective

of the upper class and more intelligent individuals from the past. This led to an increase in extra-

biased perspectives, more specifically, the older white male perspective. Because of this bias,

several cultures have been lost.

In my opinion, historians made the right decision in this. Because of theses forgotten

perspectives many people do not know where they come from or who their family was culturally.
 Branham 2

Another reason I agree with this is the globalization side of the mix, because historians are no

longer focusing on individual regions they can see histories from multiple perspectives of the

world. An example that can be used is Christianity, historians have been able to prove several

parts of the bible, some of which were happening for completely separate reasons, but several

events coincided with each other. Because historians look at things from a broader perspective,

they can clearly they are able to prove some of the events.

Another point I see in the text is the mention of quantitative history, specifically

cliometrics from Robert William Fogel. Cliometrics is an economic theory and statistical method

that analyzes historical data, long-term trends, and patterns. Fogel mentions the advantages and

limitations of cliometrics, for example, the ability to provide insights into historical phenomena

through extreme data analysis. He also addresses criticisms of cliometrics, for example, the

potential to oversimplify a complex historical process and challenge the interpretation of

historical data accurately. Overall, Fogel's main point was to highlight the integration of

quantitative methods into historical research and how those methods can enhance our

understanding of the past. I know in this section that this method of history does not sit well with

me, while this mainly due to my lack of understanding, I do know that this was an important

addition to the historical narrative.

Continuing to look through the book I notice Fernand Braudel’s exploration of historical

analysis. Braudel mentions the importance of long-term historical structures and processes and

argues that events and individuals are shaped by deeper economic, environmental, and social

forces. Braudel’s work focuses on the significance of geographical context and the

interconnectedness of various historical phenomena. In this chapter, Braudel mentions two key

terms, “Longue Duree” which translates to long-term history, and “Histoire Totale” which
 Branham 3

translates to total history. The first term focuses on the structures and patterns that have shaped

human societies over centuries, while the second term focuses on the integration of various

aspects of human experience, which include social, environmental, cultural, and economic

factors. While this section of the book was slightly complex, I do know that Braudel is correct in

the sense that individuals are shaped by more than just one factor. When looking at myself in

today’s world I know for sure that I am shaped by more than one factor, because of this I can

only assume that this is true for the past, as well as be true for the future.

Next, I looked at Theodore Zeldin and his emphasis on the importance of understanding

individual experiences and emotions in historical analysis by diving into his approach to social

and cultural history. Zeldin’s work focused primarily on the everyday life and intricacies of

human relationships, which like Stone, challenges traditional historical narratives centered on

political events. Zeldin mentions the use of personal testimonies and interviews to uncover

hidden histories and bring light to marginalized voices. Zeldin also looks at themes like love,

intimacy, and personal fulfillment, and argues that these experiences of humans are central to

understanding historical change and continuity.

Between the previous three paragraphs, I notice a large connection to Marxism as well.

Fogel's use of cliometrics aligns with Marxist approaches to understanding historical

development through the lens of class relations and economic factors. Braudel’s focus on long-

term historical processes and economic structures relates to Marxist concepts of their influence

on historical change and the modes of production. Stone’s connection is seen in his exploration

of individual agency in social history and Marxist ideas about class struggle and the impact of

socioeconomic structures on individual lives. Finally, Zeldin’s relation can be seen with his

emphasis on understanding individual emotions and experiences with broader social contexts,
 Branham 4

through a Marxist lens it can be seen as considering how capitalist ideologies and structures

shape personal aspirations and relationships. Overall, these few chapters collectively show a

relation to Tosh’s previous chapters on Marxism and the Marxist views on historical scholarship,

highlighting the connections between socioeconomic forces, individual experiences, and the

larger historical processes.

Looking at the last four chapters in the book, which in my personal opinion were the best,

I notice the common theme of differentiation between History and Memory, while this idea is

highlighted more in the first two chapters, the second two also touch on this a good amount. To

begin, Pierre Nora mentions the difference between the two, memory being life and often

vulnerable to manipulation, whereas history is the reconstruction, always problematic and

incomplete (Nora, 334). Nora also mentions two key terms, “lieux de memoire” meaning sites of

memory, and “milieux de memoire” meaning real environments of memory. Nora focuses his

attention more on the first by mentioning history's true intentions, the annihilation of what has in

reality taken place, this would empty them of what would make them lieux de memoire, (Nora

334). Along with this Nora mentions the acceleration of history, and how there is a difference

between memory and history in this context as well. Stating that “real memory” is the social and

unviolated, exemplified in but also retained as the secret of so-called primitive or archaic

societies, while history is how our forgetful modern societies organize the past, (Nora, 333).

The next set of authors, Katherine Hodgkins and Susannah Radstone, adds a new

category to the mix, contestation. They talk about how different interpretations and different

perspectives can lead to a debate in the present. These authors also mention how memory affects

social and individual dimensions by influencing both social narratives and personal identities.

They mention how memory itself is contested and negotiated and highlights its role in shaping
 Branham 5

historical consciousness and cultural identities. Along with the ideas of memory, contest, and

history, these two authors analyze the danger of using oral history as a way to capture

marginalized voices and other perspectives. They mention how while oral history can strengthen

historical understanding by giving insight into past experiences, it also acknowledges challenges

of interpreting and validating oral testimonies.

Moving on to the chapters in Beyond Academia, we move to an author we have seen

before, H.R. Trevor-Roper. This author doesn’t dive deep into memory and history like the rest

of the authors but still makes an important contribution to classical studies in historical

scholarship and the broader intellectual landscape. Roper argues the importance of classical

studies in providing a foundation for historical inquiry, specifically emphasizing their roles in

shaping Western civilization and thought. He also critiques the tendencies to narrow the focus of

historical research and advocates for a more multilayered approach that draws on insights from

various fields of study. Along with this Roper mentions the challenges and opportunities

presented by the increase in professionalization of history. He sees the dangers of history

becoming an exact science and emphasizes the importance of maintaining historical inquiry as a

dynamic and interpretive endeavor.

The last author in this section, Gerda Lerner, focuses on the intercrossing of gender, race,

and class in historical scholarship. She discusses the evolution of American historiography and

specifically emphasizes the importance of including marginalized choices and alternative

perspectives into mainstream historical narratives. Lerner also critiques traditional historical

approaches for neglecting these marginalized voices. Along with this Lerner breaks down the

relationship between memory and history, she highlights the ways historical narrative shapes

collective identity and cultural consciousness. She argues that a more inclusive and diverse
 Branham 6

approach to historical inquiry is needed, especially ones that acknowledge the multiplicity of

human experience and perspectives. Overall, Lerner critiques traditional historical scholarship

while also advocating for a more inclusive and socially conscious approach to the study of the

past. In my opinion memory and history are similar, but also completely different. One

contributes to the other and there cannot be one without the other. For example, if someone does

not remember an event then it can never be written down or orally told, meaning that in theory it

never happened.

To conclude, I noticed several changes through the last century, I noticed one

common theme seen throughout the entire text, History does not repeat, but it rhymes. I another

theme I see is that history is not just “history”, but also “his-story” meaning there are several

different sides to one story. While this theme is predominant in all the chapters, it is too general

of a theme. Therefore, analyzing a few chapters at a time will narrow down the general theme.