HISTORY AND THE FISHMONGER’S SLAB
A review of E. H. Carr’s acclaimed reflections on the theory of history and the
role of the historian
By
DALE LUIS MENEZES
In a recent episode of the hit animation series The Simpsons, the doting Marge
is shown as a college student (with her hair gracefully brushing her shoulders)
coming out of a particularly enlightening history class. She runs to Homer and
says, “Homie, did you know that history is written by the winners?” Homer
Simpson, in his characteristic dim-witted behaviour guffaws and says, “But I
thought it was written by the losers!” Jokes and puns aside, what do we
understand by the term ‘history’?
For many of us, the most tiresome and tedious subject in school that needed to
be studied was history. The chore of remembering each and every event
chronologically as well as the dates (year or sometimes even the day!) was just
too much of a burden, a drone of facts that needed to be digested, just like a
bitter medicine. But such a sombre view of history, in my opinion, results from
the misguided pedagogy of our educational system. History is much more vast and
meaningful, too.
E. H. Carr in his What is History? tries to explain the meaning of history, how
a historian should, ideally conduct him/herself and how history ought to be.
First published in the 1960s, this book is considered a classic and serves as a
good guidebook to approach history. In short, Carr discusses the philosophy of
history. Against the background of Carr’s book, I would also like to explore a
few issues of teaching history in our schools.
An essay by Gananath Obeyesekere in the Economic and Political Weekly a few
months back pointed out that “…no one can be certain about what actually
occurred in history and one must be satisfied with ‘reconstructing’ history
from the bits and pieces of evidence that we possess. History is always a
matter of interpretation and interpretation permits considerable leeway for
disagreement.” Carr also makes a similar point, “The belief in a hard core of
historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation
of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to
eradicate [emphasis mine].” He states the example of Caesar crossing the
Rubicon as constituting a historical fact. Many beasts of burden as well as
people have also crossed the Rubicon which equally qualify as historical facts
but are not considered by the historian as such.
Carr says that, “The facts are available to the historian in documents,
inscriptions and so on, like fish on the fishmonger’s slab. The historian
collects them, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style
appeals to him.” The metaphor of the fish and the fishmonger should have no
trouble in etching itself in the minds of Goans!
To me, as a student of history, these abovementioned observations are basic. In
schools (as well as in the universities) we are made to believe that whatever
is in the textbooks is true. But since history is an interpretation there can
be counter-arguments; are the students in a classroom encouraged to disagree
and counter-argue? Without knowing what exactly is history, is it prudent to
start learning history? Wouldn’t a parent be mortified and horrified if a child
is taught how to solve quadratic equations without knowing the basic additions,
subtractions, divisions and multiplications? And what would be the cognitive
state of the child subjected to such misguided pedagogy?
Importance of knowing the background of the historian is discussed by Carr. It
is very important to know the biases of a historian as they would make him/her
choose certain facts and discard the rest for historical interpretation.
His/her analysis too would proceed in a way that supports his/her ideological
leanings and biases (or “buzzing”). “Study the historian before you begin to
study the facts. When you read a work of history, always listen out for the
buzzing,” Carr says.
I do find the definition that Carr gives about history very holistic, “‘What is
history?’ is that it is a continuous process of interaction between the
historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the
past.” In the Indian and Goan contexts, the colonial historiographies were
replaced by Indian/Hindu nationalist historiographies; at the same time some
scholars tried to move in a post-colonial direction while not falling in the
traps of questionable triumphs of nationalism (a good example would be Teotonio
R. de Souza’s Medieval Goa). We need to realize that history is not a static
entity but a dynamic process shaped by the political climate and the problems
existing at that point of time. A process that continues…
History primarily depends on written sources. Carr criticizes the tendency of
historians to believe whatever is in the written documents. “If you find it in
the documents, it is so. But what, when we get down to it, do these documents –
the decrees, the treatise, the rent-rolls, the blue books, the official
correspondence, the private letters and diaries – tell us? No documents can
tells us more than what the author of the document thought – what he thought
had happened, what he thought ought to happen or would happen, or perhaps only
what he wanted others to think he thought, or even only what he himself thought
he thought.”
Since history is essentially a tool for the elite and powerful to propagate
their ideologies and since our educational system is hell-bent on teaching our
kids history without actually teaching the meaning and methodology of history,
I feel that it is unjust to teach history to young kid whose minds are very
sensitive. Perhaps, history can be introduced from class VIII onwards when a
little more maturity is attained, with the first lesson being – you’ve guessed
it! – What is history? In the previous classes, I feel, sociology can be
introduced as, what it fundamentally teaches us is that, there are many ways of
looking at the world and all have a legitimate right to do so. A mangled and
biased understanding of history, who knows, may make one’s child into a venom
spewing monster.
Inasmuch as this book is a practical guide to a student of history and a
brilliant critique of the various nuances and processes involved in the
construction of history, I feel What is History? has the potential for
augmenting a lay person’s understanding of the historical processes.
Comments/feedback @ www.daleluismenezes.blogspot.com
Find my writings @ www.daleluismenezes.blogspot.com
