What's The Difference Between History and The Past?

Are History & The Past Two Different Things?

Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com

What’s the difference between the past and History? On first glance, one might say they’re the same, but is that really true? In reality, it would be impossible to account for every single thing that occurs in the past, so historians pick and choose what they feel is most important and organize it into a narrative. History is an inherently interpretive process; it’s more like an artwork, and historians more like artists, than we give each credit. But what does that mean when you take into account inherent biases, subjective interpretation or even incorrect information? And what about historical fiction, like Downton Abbey, where the historical context is accurate but the characters fictional? Is Downton Abbey just as relevant of a historical text as say, an AP History book? Watch the episode to find out!

----------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­­­----------------------------

Rugnetta WheezyWaiter Face Swap

----------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­­­----------------------------

TWEET OF THE WEEK:

----------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­­­----------------------------

ASSET LINKS:

All asset links can be viewed here in this fun Google doc!

2:05 Old Spice | And So It Begins

2:07 Peter Griffin Hits His Knee

3:16 Bruce Almighty - Jim Carrey meets God (HD)

5:15 How to Use Microfiche

6:16 Medieval POC

7:39 Adapting heritage: Class and conservatism in
Downton Abbey

8:02 Kendall Has Some S--t to Explain | Keeping Up With the Kardashians | E!

9:16 JAMESTOWN SETTLEMENT, Living History Museum

9:43 1994 O.J. Simpson handcuffed after chase

9:45 O.J. Simpson Infamously Trying On Gloves At Trial

9:47 USC vs UCLA 1967 - OJ Simpson 64 Yard TD

11:52 Rugnetta WheezyWaiter Face Swap

----------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­­----------------------------

MUSIC at 07:24
Monotone - Minimalist

----------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­­­----------------------------

[ScintillaNoNumber]

I find it interesting that exactly the same happens on the individual level. In psychology it is generally accepted that our own memory is reconstructive. What we remember is not an accurate and completely truthful account of the things that happened to us, but a creative reconstruction heavily influened by our emotions in the present, meaning making processes, social influences and so forth. Great channel btw - I've just discovered you and I'm totally hooked!

[Roll]

HOW did I only just find this channel? (Well, it's finals week so maybe my masterful powers of procrastination are good for something.) No matter the reason, thank you for existing, PBS Idea Channel.

[pbsideachannel]

It's good to be back! How was everyone's last two weeks? Read anything interesting? :D

[Kithara]

In the archaeological field, we say that archaeology is a random record of the past, while history is highly curated at each separation. Primary sources are curated to emphasize what that source considers important; secondary sources can add or subtract to further distill what they want their audience to take away. The world of ancient Greece we get from literature (whether it's Homer or Herodotus) is vastly different from that which we get from archaeology. One example of this discrepancy is the widespread existence of herms. These small, phallic pillars would have been as common as mailboxes, likely as wards against the evil eye, but precisely because of their omnipresence they were rarely if ever recorded. The authors of history assumed that our "minimal departure" would be the same as theirs, and left out what they considered normal, while we scratch our heads at why every house had a rectangular slab of rock with a penis sticking out of it. Historical fiction, on the other hand, assumes that the past's minimal departure is the same as the present. Perhaps they are equally not the true past, but in opposite respects.

[DragoSonicMile]

The past isn't tomorrow
The past is not today
Yet the past holds on tightly
There is no getting away

[twixxx]

I just wrote a midterm exam essay about this! Specifically about Hayden White and his influence on Borges with respect to the short story "La Lotería en Babilonia". The relevant part of everything I covered in the test is that according to (my interpretation of) White and Borges we never have direct access to the past. We can only dig up scraps from old rubble and primary sources and then infer relations and connections to create a narrative, and then that narrative itself is up to the interpretation of the hearer because language is subjective and informed by personal experiences. However it isn't bad that we create a historical narrative because that narrative is what gives the past meaning and significance that we can refer to and learn from.

[GregPoblete]

In my US Ethnic Writers class, we read Louise Erdrich's novel "The Plague of Doves" which is about a Native American community / town built upon a violent history. The novel has an interesting way of telling the story of the past by giving separate sections to certain narrators, both American and Native Americans. By doing this, Erdrich focuses not on the actual past but the way in which the story is told in the present through each narrator. Same thing goes with basically any story ever told. There is always some sort of bias towards one person's perspective and privileges their narrative to ensure that the story, or the version of their story is the only one being told.

[CynicalHistorian]

As you might guess from my username, I've got a long response to this one. Before I get too complicated though, I just have to say, this was absolutely fantastic! Really thought provoking! And I'm quite happy that you didn't resort to that standard postmodern/poststructuralist stuff about _how can we ever know anything_. Obviously, no one in their right mind should question any number of things we would label _facts_. Yet, there are serious problems with History (with a capital H) in which you are correct in alluding to.

In illuminating the problem of interpretation, you are nailing the head of the pin on that one. Historians typically talk about contextualizing narrative (aka interpretation). There is so much in the field where people are working with the same facts and coming up with different conclusions. I would argue that this is fundamentally different from fiction though:

History relies on *verifiability*, whereas fiction is anything but that. History (with a capital H) comes with footnotes, bibliographies, historiographic discussion, critical analysis, and the full weight of peer review. Evidence is a requirement, and it is heavily checked. At no point in a movie may you question something and simply inspect the reference. That kind of stuff is just not part of the medium. I review movies for their historical content, and they often cannot even follow the things that they make explicit reference to. Yet historians cannot desert the truth so readily. There are so many layers of scholarly checks to make sure one is publishing proper material.

That is not to say that there isn't a fundamental problem with historiography and interpretation epistemologically. How can we have such disparate understandings of standard narratives such as between Orthodoxy, Revisionism, and Post-Revisionism? When considering the basis of the field, when do narrative techniques override truth value? At what point can we say that applying the ideas of today are effecting our understanding of the past? When is a historian being inadequately critical of their sources? These are not problems of fiction though. When working with evidence, then you are indeed working with a completely different level of truth-telling from fiction. Yes, fiction is narrative based, just as history, but history maintains verifiability, whereas fiction does not. It's the scholarship that makes history different, not the narrative elements.

Another interesting angle that you could take on this subject is through Derrida's attack on historians' reliance on the written word. Afterall, history only begins with writing. Everything beforehand? Ah, well that's just *pre-history* (said sarcastically). But in truth, that is how the field is formulated. Of course, there is plenty where evidence is insufficient, but what about where there is alternative methods? We rely on the Chicago Manual of Style for citation methods, but there is no way listed in any edition (including Kate Turabian) that explains how to use artifactual evidence. What makes a written sentence on some artifact more significant than the object itself? History can be done without written evidence, but the field is extraordinarily opposed to the notion. Derrida, of course, used this to say that no History can be written without that inherent bias built in (though I see that as a bit of an exaggeration). This is the direction I thought the video would go, given the title/thumbnail, but I am quite happy with what you guys produced anyways.

Seriously, this is kind of my stock and trade on YouTube! If you want to talk further on this subject, I can drone on for hours. Maybe we should talk some time. This show has been fairly inspirational to my own.

[FlyToTheRain]

In my US history class this semester instead of focusing on learning specific dates and details, for our assignments our professor would either give us or have us create a fictional profile of a person and then analyze how that person would react to various events or subjects in history. Essentially learning history through creating historical fiction, and personally my absolute favorite way I've ever been taught history. Also side note: totally adding Rurouni Kenshin to my anime list.

[ColinKable]

Rindflorist reminds me of a florist in my home town called Reindfleisch Flowers. Reindfleisch means ground meat in german, so it always made me giggle.

[doctorscoot]

I'm a classical history PhD. This was a very good video. Props!

[PatrickHogan]

This is the Idea Channel I know and love. It seems like recently several episodes have been, while interesting, of such different format, style, and subject that I thought we had lost the Idea Channel that used to make me ponder week after week.

[Cirebocaj]

Perhaps the reason behind Homer's "Wine Dark Sea" is that wine wouldn't have been seen in a transparent vessel until a millenium later. Looking down into an opaque vessel full of wine would probably appear nearly as dark as an inkwell.

[zodayn]

I see historical fiction as an easy example of the past with as its benefit to pick and devote attention to more specific topics while keeping the scenario easy to understand in other fields. This creates a sort of case study in a secured environment that may not be the actual truth but does make it easier for the consumer to understand similar cases that happened in real life.

[MrTa]

History, like news, is always written from a point of view. It's important to always seek to have multiple, and even contradictory, factually plausible sources to get a better understanding of what happened.
But still you can't ever have all the facts, the ultimate truth of things, even if you are one of the witnesses of events, because we always tend to filter, focus, omit, things based on your experiences, political views, or even your breakfast that day.
Keeping an healthy dose of critical thinking when you read everything event (be it history, past, or news) related is the best habit to have.

[SocraTetris]

I think there are two distinct points on understanding the difference between History and Historical fiction. First, the fundamental motivation is distinct. While more or less succeeded in, History is primarily concerned with recording the Data, preserving facts in as much as any biased observer can. Historical fiction is primarily concerned with Engagement/Entertainment of the reader. Both can, and will, to certain extents do both, but the primacy of one motivation over another completely changes the nature of the resulting works. Rurouni Kenshin is a period drama that incentivizes a person to then go pursue the data of the past through History. History is itself not a pure reflection of the data, but can be compared and contrasted in a way that when done with works of fiction just becomes "better or worse stories." I believe if we had a more robust understanding of the different fields of scholarship within the practice of History, the comparison of History to Historical Fiction would not be as important of a point. If the attempt to record data was given the title History, while the pursuit to understand the meaning behind it and its part in the modern understanding of things were called Historic-Philosophy, we'd have less qualms with the abstraction of what is actually History. Both the Data half and the meaning-oriented half could be debated and be subject to hypothesis and test as well, but we could see more easily the different ways in which it ought to be done, and the different burdens the nature of debating those two subjects require. Just a thought.

[Skjetch]

The format of all of these videos is that of an in depth research essay, in this case video, on extremely interesting topics. I am so very impressed that this guy can keep pumping these things out so quickly. Bravo!

[mikefaff-livingintheillusi]

Hi Mike, I ran across your YouTube Vidio because I was researching "What is the past, " and there you were. My understanding of the past is much like yours. I found your Video to be clear and crisp. And it reaffirms my understanding that the past doesn't exist, at least the way we think it does. However, I don't think many people will find it comforting to accept that conclusion. So strong is the belief that the past exists the way we think it does, and so difficult to understand nothing is the way we think it is. Thank you for your insight
Mike

[Beanly]

I'm just stopping here to say that I absolutely adore the direction that this channel is going in. Keep it up you magnificent people.

[brockmckelvey]

These videos are always a nice break from studying and paper writing :) Glad to see ya'll back here!