I talk with Ahmed this morning about the blog post and Fasolt.
Just a funny part: Because we talk on the phone and my accent is silly, Ahmed has a hard time figuring out what I said and I have trouble hearing him as well. When I first say Fasolt name, Ahmed couldn’t figure out what I said but when I say “fatso” Ahmed is fine with it… So during the meeting, I keep saying “fatso” this, “fatso” that.
Now, let’s get some serious business done. First, I point out the last paragraph, “The difference between evidence… Their function is the same”, on page 5 (course packet 64), Fasolt simply says that evidence/sources are not needed. I disagree with this. I connect with a small myth of Vietnam. In the myth, a “great man” fight against an army (army is not 20 people group, I mean army) for the village alone and died in the golden bamboo forest. That’s absolutely not real, but actually the evidence that the “great man” existed is there. Near the town_ which used to be that village, there was a bamboo forest and further in (near a hill or something), the bamboos are more gold (or brown), and in that area, the “great man” tomb is there. The town people also make a small temple to worship him… Which means this myth is partly true. Without these evident, I can totally disregard this myth as a make-up story. The problem with history without source/evidence is that people can exaggerate the details to make the story interesting or benefit them.
Next, we discuss page 40 (course packet 82), “But it cannot be grasped by reason…. No new form of history here offered here.” In here, Fasolt simply says that history is about the understanding of the past so the future can be improved, not just a Rankean bunch of facts without analysis, and asking history to be absolutely the same as the past is asking for too much. I have to agree with this. My most painful experience so far is with history (up until now) because the history textbook is just one way history_ recorded, analyzed, and present by one side of history. That kind of history doesn’t help us (people of now) improve the future. And as Ahmed points out, history textbooks are very bias (Ben says at the beginning of the semester, something about history textbooks are the tertiary source, edited by people who don’t even have any idea about history). Like how U.S. history textbooks would say about the Vietnam War in a different way than Vietnamese textbooks. My knowledge about the WWII is ‘Nazi, Hitler, burning Jews, pure evil’ (I know, it was that bad and pathetic), and I gave no thought about it because it’s over. Now, I see the whole ‘Hitler thing’ (still very pathetic but much better now) an evil to serve a purpose, like facts to serve a theory with position, and I did not think so before.
Toward the end of the discussion, I make fun of “fatso” a little bit. I point out that even though Fatsolt is so against the idea of evidence/source, there are six pages p. 234-239 (or three pages of course packet, p 85-87) all source cites. Which, even though kind of against what he was saying, serve the purpose of proving his theory and what he said are bureaucratic legitimate.
"I point out that even though Fatsolt is so against the idea of evidence/source, there are six pages p. 234-239 (or three pages of course packet, p 85-87) all source cites."
ReplyDeleteMight this not suggest that Fasolt (who is, incidentally, quite a thin man) is actually NOT "so against the idea of evidence/source"? Because I don't think he is. He's just pointing to where this idea came from, and the politics behind it, and why it might be dangerous. That's different from saying not to use it. He never says this. In fact, toward the end of the chapter, he says the opposite. And as you point out, he clearly is doing it himself.
To Ben:
ReplyDeleteYah, after I do the blog post, I go back and look through the ending a little bit more to talk with Shukri and finally realize that Fasolt doesn't disagree with using evidence/source. No wonder why I feel like what he says on page 5 (course packet 64) is quite contradicting with what he says on page 40 (course packet 82). Thanks for clearing that up. I just feel like (I have been thinking so anyway) all the history theorists/people just have to use all that "big words" and "high level language" (like Hegel) and give me a hard time...
I, too, find Fasolt's language a little more elaborate than needed. I wonder why historians can't just use regular everyday vocab to say what they mean instead of hiding the esoteric truth? this is america and we are protected by the right of free speech. people should say what they mean and mean what they say instead of flowery language that makes it hard to understand.
ReplyDelete