Carr vs. Elton Debate (1 Viewer)

[Paroissien]

Where can I find resources on this?

 

[silvermoon]

the book of readings has articles from both carr and elton - and elton specificaaly refers to 'Mr Carr' in his article and shows how their ideas differ. otherwise, a general net search on google shoudl return plenty of stuff i should imagine

 

[Paroissien]

What book of readings are you refering to? My teacher gave me a book of sources but it has nothing on Carr or Elton

 

[Plebeian]

It's a big collection of articles/excerpts from historians.

You can get it as a PDF at:

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/history_ext_readings.pdf

 

[Sarah168]

the main page has a summary of the carr elton debate but it is very very very brief.

 

[silvermoon]

the main page has a summary of the carr elton debate but it is very very very brief.

the main page of what? our book of readings (if thats whast u were referring to) doesnt have a main page with summaries - just an index and the articles. in the bk of readings theres a 21 page article by Elton where he discusses his historical method, views on subjectivity/objectivity and his disagreement with EH Carr.

 

[Sarah168]

main page of this site

 

[Caratacus]

There's this:

http://www.granta.com/books/chapters/295

and this

http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Whatishistory/evans4.html

and this

http://www.ucc.ie/chronicon/elton.htm

and this

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_4_32/ai_55084007

 

[silvermoon]

main page of this site

*sheepishly*
oh
*goes off into corner to feel stupid*

 

[Paroissien]

Ok, my teacher only handed out about a quarter of the book of readings by the look of it. That's a bitch.

 

[Sarah168]

If you want the entire set of readings it's under the syllabus at the real board of studies site. I can never remember the url so consult our dear friend Mr google

 

[Caratacus]

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/syllabus2000_listh.html#hindic

 

[Plebeian]

I already posted the URL for the Book of Readings ... look up.

 

[Caratacus]

There's nothing wrong with my attention span.
I can remember every -
There's nothing wrong with my attention span.
I can remember every -
There's nothing wrong with my attention span.
I can remember every -
um
There's nothing wrong with my attention span.
I can remember every -
um...


The Resistance of Memory

It’s really great to meet you dude, for sure.
Weren't you here a while ago -– you don’t agree?
-- Hey! You ever seen this weed before?

I’ll take a spin around the bowl, not bore
myself with all the usual -- hmm…who’s he?
Yeah, really great to meet you too, for sure.

I wonder what’s behind that castle door?
I should swim up and see what’s there to see
-- Whoa! I’ve never seen this weed before!

These things, the weed… you know, the more and more--
Hey! That guy’s face! – er… now where were we…?
Yeah, really great to meet you too, for sure…

Man, there has to be some natural law
that saves a fish from life's inanity
-- Hey! I’ve never seen this weed before!

The more I plan it out, the more I draw
a blank – hey dude! Did you arrive with me?
It’s really great to meet you, man, for sure.
-- Whoa! You ever seen this weed before?

Nigel Holt

 

[silvermoon]

ohmygod, i swear holt's my stalker in another life...its as if to compose that poem he just followed me around and wrote down everything i said in 5 minutes... slightly scary but true. hehehe, do u know goldfish only have a 3-second attention span (yeah, that came form left-field...i didnt even know i knew that ) lalalala...now, what were we talking about?

 

[Caratacus]

Lolol... yeah it's a good example of poetic form fitting the content really well - the poem's a villanelle where you're only allowed 2 rhymes & you have to keep repeating 2 lines (with slight variations if you want) throughout the poem - so it really suits the repetitve subject here... or something...

 

[laracroft]

im still confused on this whole debate thing, n its relationship with Postmodernism. i was jsut readding this summary thing and it was sayinh how Carr does give a postmodernist view, but then it also stated that he was still prepared to see the possibilty of a historians objectivity. so now im confused on how this whole thing fits together....could some1 explain please

 

[silvermoon]

well, eltons view of subjectivity/objectivity is that, whilst he acknowledges that no1 can ever know all the truth, that this doesnt mean its not possible to obtain some truth. ok, that so wasnt explained well. *ahem* quote: "...some philosophers...arrive at the conclusion that...there is no way of establishing truth in history...They either maintain that the past, being dead and irrecoverable, cannot be known about in any meaningful sense; or that the impact of the historian upon his material renders all the history supposedly known a matter of provate choice and interpretation, so that in the end there is nothing but subjective opinion...These opnions show some ignorance of the matter studied by the historical discipline and forget that inability to know all the truth is not the same thing as total inability to know the truth" - Elton (sorry, i know that was a long quote, but it was from a 20 pg article, so i think i did well!)
EH Carr - "Some say that the facts speak for themselves...[this is] untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them." - therefore, he is saying that history is ultimately a subjective discipline, because the very fact that historians must select what 'facts' to include and interpret documents etc. means that no history can ever be more accurate than another as they all boil down to how the historian choose to select and interpret their evidence.
hope that helped at all...god knows im not the most concise or well-expressed person here!

 

[silvermoon]

oh, and by supporting the theory of historical subjectivity, Carr basically has no choice but to accept that an objective historians work/treatise is as valid as his own. Postmodernism says, among other things, that all historians impose themselves on the past, all history is as much fiction as it is fact, and no one view of history is more correct than another - hence why carr classifies as a postemodernist.

 

[Paroissien]

This might be wrong, but from memory Carr didn't want to deny the possibility of objective truth, and ended up taking some sort of shaky middle ground. Would it be worth mentioning that?