Live webchat with historian John Child - Weds 17 Oct 1-2pm

tidymind

If the Archduke hadn't been shot, surely the First World War would have started sooner or later anyway? The Great Powers wanted it too much; they would have found another casus belli?

Hi tidymind,

Ah, but nothing's inevitable in history tidymind. Just because something was likely to happen doesn't mean that it was bound to happen.

It's toooo tempting to say it. If you're this interested in how causation works, the Pearson Love to Learn course on Turning Points in Modern History would so suit you.

Go for the free trial.

closetgran

Do you think it's right that the British Citizenship test includes questions on British history? Have you had a look at them and do you think they're the right questions? How does anyone decide that the key thing to know is which king defeated the Vikings at the end of the 9th century?

Sorry closetgran, I've probably looked less carefully at the citizenship test than you have by the seem of things.

It seemed rude to ignore your question however.

I do have one word of solace for you. Any modern immigrant to this country who was moved to investigate early British history, because of these tests, would learn that our whole country has been build on waves of immigration.
Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman and so on. My own name (Child) probably came to Britain with the Normans. The area I live in (South Yorkshire) is full of Saxon and Viking place-names.

We're all immigrants in this sense. Knowing this might actually make new immigrants more confident in their British citizenship.

crimson

If you could go back in time for one event, what would it be? For me, The Great Exhibition! [apologies if this has already been asked; no time to go back through the thread!] Oh, and which tv presenter do you think bring s history to life the best? I used to like Michael Wood but I now prefer the guy who did the amazing series about the Normans. Everyone I knew loved it. And, why do people sometimes wear cotton gloves when handling old objects and sometimes they don't. There seems to be no common thread; even old manuscripts/letters are sometimes handled without gloves. Over the years many of us had questioned this. Sorry; I'll shut up now .

Hi crimson,

Three quick answers for you.

I'd love to be able to take a holiday in Victorian London. Just a fortnight. Experience the streets - the hustle, the noise, the buildings, the clothes, the thousands of horses, the opinions, the filth...I could go on and on. But then I'd want to come back to the present please!

AJP Taylor for me. It was too long ago for you to remember. 1960's probably. He did 30 minute live - yes live - talks to camera and always finished tidily and exactly on time. It was just like being in a pub and having a pint and a chat with your favourite historian.

Why gloves or no gloves? Sorry crimson, this is too technical for me. You'd need to ask an archivist. Sorry again.

isthisallthereis

Am going to make some lunch now so I can be ready for 1-2pm. Some great starters above. Yes, effblinder, fashion is an interesting one. It spurs unnecessary consumption, ie it "helps the economy", also sometimes it seems to be technology driven, so in fact the miniskirts worn now are totally different from the ones girls wore in the 60s, the invention of Lycra has ensured that. There are theories that hemlines respond to economic times, I think it's that skirts shorten in times of economic prosperity and lengthen in bad times.

But many skirts are extremely short now - or even absent, this extraordinary, to me, fashion for wearing just tights with no skirt at all! I know men did that in Renaissance times but not women, also Lycra/Spandex may have made tights a very different, more shaped garment than in 1450s Italy. Skirts are short but we don't seem to be enjoying economic prosperity here in the UK at all just now!

Whether stories are embellished is also fascinating. Could John Child perhaps explain how historians deal with this. I know importance is given to material from Primary Sources but what does that mean and how exactly does it work? I think historians are know to fall out badly over accuracy/interpretation, could John Child just mention some cases and how they were resolved, if indeed they ever were!

Hi isthisallthereis,

A huge post - but I'd love to address your last question.

When I was at Cambridge in the 1970's a debate raged amongst historians about whether the standard of living of working people rose or fell during the industrial revolution in Britain. The two main protagonists were historians named Hobsbawm and Hartwell.

The two of them slugged it out in a series of academic articles over a decade or so. Eventually, the onlooking historical community were able to sift throught their evidence and arguments to decide who was right.

This meant that a consensus emerged - which was, in some ways, an answer which incorporated some of the views of each side.

This is an example of how a historical consesus comes about. But remember, historical 'truth' is always provisional - it's tentative and imperfect. We can never have complete and absolute knowledge of the past.

applepie

Hi John! Have any of your children/grandchildren followed your interest in history and made a career of it?

Hi applepie,

Thanks for the question. Some share an interest in history and some don't.

My daughter's degree involved history, but it's not really my son's thing.

I have five grandchildren and they are all very different.

I think they will all be good at history, but there is one in particular who is very interested. While his family are doing other things, he scours the History Channel or reads his history books. He tells me so much about his history lessons at school, I almost feel that I've been there!

suffolklass

I think Minette has a really good point.

Will we regard the Arab Spring as a turning point in the future, or the EU/Greek currency crisis?

Its a really interesting way to look at History.

It would be great to have your views John.....?

Hi suffolklass,

Your view sounds very familiar. As we debated the outline for the Pearson Love to Learn course on Turning Points in Modern History, we considered exactly this.

The great thing about the Turning Points course is that it allows YOU to decide what a turning point is.

antheaj

I am sure I got turned off history by having to learn kings and queens and things that seemed so remote from my life by rote. I think if I had learned more modern history I would probably have felt differently

Do you think it's important for children to learn a mix? And what age is best to get them interested? Any tips on doing so would also be appreciated - I would be very pleased if my DGC viewed the subject with more enthusiasm that I did

Hi antheaj

I answered a similar question for Grannygee. This is what I said to her.

Use books and visits. Read to your grandchildren and use your experience of life to explain deeper meaning in the books. Take your grandchildren on visits – to London, to old factories, to churches and church yards, castles, museums and great houses – and use your adult mind to explain what you see.

Over the years, they'll begin to see history as you do.

Grannygee

Looking back at my secondary education and comparing it to that of my children's I feel sad that I didn't get the same enthusiastic approach as they have had. With history the only teacher I remember is one who brought history to life a little by telling anecdotal stories. I was no good at history I tell people but now I am interested and want to know more but feel I haven't time left to learn and wouldn't know where to begin. However, having gained a grandson and another on the way I'd love to be able to bring some knowledge and interest of the past, into their lives as well as the knowledge they'll gain from their own education. Where, John, would you suggest I begin?

Grannygee. What a wonderful person you sound. Reflective, inquisitive, caring, generous.

How can you complement your grandchildren’s education? Here are two suggestions for you.

First, try the Pearson Love to Learn course, Turning Points in Modern History. [Sorry, I couldn’t resist it]. It would certainly scratch your itch for history.

Secondly, use books and visits. Read to your grandchildren and use your experience of life to explain deeper meaning in the books. Take your grandchildren on visits – to London, to old factories, to churches and church yards, castles, museums and great houses – and use your adult mind to explain what you see.

Don't expect instant results. You'll have an impact over years, not weeks.

DavidH22

Do you think we learn from history? After all the horrors of the First World War did little to prevent the Second World War. And the world is still full of dictators who seem to rule without, or very little, sanction.
Secondly if you could go back in time who would you stop being born?

Now David – you must really try Turning Points in History. It’s right up your street. It covers the causes of the two World Wars – which were very different. There’s no way that learning lessons from 1914 would have stopped war in 1939.

But on a general level, let me answer your two questions in very brief terms. Then you can come back to me if you want more detail.

Can we learn from history? Yes. But understanding the past and controlling the future are two different things.

Who would I stop being born? What a good dinner party question. How about this name just to start a debate. Gavrilo Princip.

glassortwo

gilly I loved History at school and if things had been different I may have taken it further, our History teacher Miss Wright was the most interesting woman you could imagine and she brought it alive before our eyes. She was a character smoked like a trouper and drank strong coffee, but we were all glued to our seats through the lesson. If she could have been bottled schools would have benefited from a touch of her excellence.

Hi glassortwo. How lucky were you!

There are very few teachers who can do what Miss Wright did. I knew one once. Charles Bawden at Sandown High School. He made people and events come alive. When he taught 19th Century history, you didn’t just believe he was a person - Bismark, you actually believed that he was a country - Prussia.

MiceElf

How old do you think children have to be before they can begin to assess the importance and validity of the sources that are presented to them. After all, someone has already filtered and selected those sources, so they then become a long way from the primary sources that an evaluation is supposed to be made on.

Isn't this just as is dishonest as the old fashioned narrative accounts which didn't quote any sources but presented a 'story' filtered through the narrative eye of the author.

Hi MiceElf,

I've come back to the web chat to answer some of the questions which I didn't have time to address on Wednesday. I couldn't resist answering your question.

Is it honest to select sources and then ask students to use these to come up with their own interpretation?

If you want students to have their own view of the past, then no it’s not. They can’t form their own personal view; they will come to the conclusion the sources direct them to.

But if you want students to develop the skills of sifting evidence and then using this to come to a logical view, then it’s a perfectly valid exercise.

Indeed, if this is your aim, it’s arguably vital to choose sources which direct students to a given conclusion, so that you can test the quality of their deductions.

If they learn the skills of deduction in this kind of exercise, they can use them to form their own views of other matters.

isthisallthereis

Is History still the history of the rich, the ruling and the victorious? Has the trend to People's History and Oral History Projects had any real effect at all? Either at grassroots or amongst History academics? I don't think it has. Please let's be honest here and not deal in pipe dreams and wishful thinking!

Hi isthisallthereis,

I've really enjoyed reading your contributions. Were you a teacher - or even a history teacher?

In academia, the importance of people's history and oral history has grown greatly. But not so much is schools. In primary schools, you see more work on 'life in Victorian England' - by which they mean the everyday life of all kinds of people, not just the rich. But secondary school history has changed less. There is more social history, but high politics still dominates.

But in life outside schools, we can study any kind of history we like. It's a bit naughty of me, but I'd suggest that, if you want to study political history, try my Turning Points course which I did for Pearson. If you want to look at people's history, try my Family History course, which I also wrote for Pearson.

Sorry, couldn't resist the plug.

Valentine

Hello John, I have a couple of questions which may be a bit abstract and philosophical but I think essential for any historian, amateur ones, like me.
- is the saying 'History repeats itself' true?
- and can we ever have an impartial recount of history? Thank you

Two good questions Valentine. Let me answer the easy one first.

Can we ever have an impartial account of history? No. We are unlikely to have an accurate one, let alone an impartial one.

I was once teaching a history class of 14-year olds. As an exercise in discussing evidence, I had arranged for a colleague to come into the room mid-lesson and tell me that the Headteacher wanted to see me about a disciplinary matter concerning a girl. 10 minutes after the colleague left the room, I asked the class to write down what they had seen. Even with a clear first-hand view of events, we had almost 30 different ‘histories’ of what happened. The Headteacher was angry / very angry / impatient. The colleague was apologetic / worried / amused. A girl had done something wrong. I’d been accused of something by a girl. I was needed / in trouble / about to get the sack.

That just touches on the issue of accuracy. It doesn’t even consider bias.

Does history repeat itself? Let me know what you think Valentine, and I’ll tell you if I agree.

MiceElf

Do you think that towering individuals such as Churchill or Florence Nightingale changed history or were they just in the right place at the right time?

The role of the individual. Another great question MiceElf.

To an extent, every one of us is the produce of our age; we are shaped by the times we live in. But of few of us are not just swept along by the views or our time; this few manage to make a difference – they change the course of events. Winston Churchill and Florence Nightingale both fall into that category.

Just in the right place at the right time? Again, if you want to pick up that point again, I’ll give you my opinion.

Granny23

I am more interested in social history than big events, Rulers and Battles and have tended to absorb, indeed, swallow whole, accounts of life in the past up to the 19th century. However, when I read more recent history, I find that I am constanty questioning the validity of the 'facts' because they often contradict my own experience (from 1950 onwards) and the 'history' learnt from my parents and grandparents who were alive and active participants during the earlier 20th century. How do you reconcile these differing views of recent history?

Hi Granny23. A thoughtful question. Not unlike the one Valentine posed earlier on. How do I reconcile differing views of recent history?

I don’t think I can reconcile them Granny23. Nor do I really want to. Views of history are just that. Views; not facts. There will always be differing views of the same events.

Take the government’s response to the 1984-5 miners’ strike for example.
•A natural attempt to keep law and order?
•Harsh oppression of workers who were victims of undeserved social hardship?
•A realistic response to the long-term decline of the coal industry?
•An opportunistic attack on a weak and divided trade union movement?

These are all valid views of what happened. Remember, explaining what happened isn’t the same as agreeing with what the government did.

jeni

My teacher at school was booooring. We learnt the events leading up to the First World War . I hated it . I think that interesting history ends at thenagemof the industrial revolution and for me started in the Rift Valley in South Africa.
Do you think children would be more interested in history if it started at the beginning with the fossil record?

Jeni,

Sorry to ignore you for so long. I've been desperate to get back to your question.

Back in the 1980's, before the National Curriculum, when I was a head of history, we devised our own history syllabus for our school and - guess what? - we began it with the fossil record from the Great Rift Valley in Africa.

Great minds think alike!

Zorro

Ha! Very interested in your answer to flopsybunny. Given that history is written by the victors, aren't we only ever getting a form of fiction anyway?

Hi Zorro,

Yes, it's often the history written by the victors which survives. But this doesn't make it fiction.

All history is interpretation of the past. That makes it a view, an opinion. But that's not the same as fiction. Read lots of fiction and you're no closer to the truth. Read lots of opinions and you can decide what you think is the truth.

getmehrt

What this seems to be coming down to is 'what is REAL?' Hilary Mantel made a case on radio this morning for enhancing understanding of the facts by giving us a sense of what it felt like to be in a room at the time of Cromwell. Surely there's a case for giving us the emotional truth? (The truth after all is never definitive and I don't think anyone could fault Mantel's research - she's been working on this project most of her life).

Yes getmehrt, I agree.

But the key things here are "enhancing understanding of the facts". You do this after gaining a basic understanding. I love historical fiction, but I love it most when it covers periods which I know well. Then it can "enhance" my knowledge and understanding OR - most importantly - I can ignore the fictional devices or fictional events or fictional interpretations which the author may include for literary or artistic reasons.

After we've all finished debating this, let's all buy the books. Hilary Mantel deserves it.