Horrible History
1
74 T erry Deary is the author behind the Horrible Histories series, some of the most successful children’s history books in, well, history. His works have inspired a renaissance in the classroom, with his portrayal of the grotty bits of our past translating into an increased interest in the subject as more pupils are choosing history at GCSE and A Level. Yet in The Times on 31 May, Deary claimed that history was ‘the seediest profession I’ve worked in’ and that historians are ‘devious’ because ‘they pick on a particular angle and they select their facts to prove the case and make a name for themselves … They don’t write straight history. They don’t write objective history.’ Rather astonishingly, he singled out Professor Niall Ferguson for criticism – one of the most respected academic historians, who has also forged a successful television career – stating that Ferguson was ‘obnoxious’ and a ‘deeply offensive right-wing man who uses history to get across a political point’ because he wrote a book ‘to prove that the British Empire was a good thing’. Rather unsurprisingly, this has sparked a war of words. Ferguson’s riposte was that ‘I have read some of the Horrible Histories to my children, along with Harry Potter, The Hobbit and many other children’s books. They’re quite funny. And so is this … [My] book argued that there were benefits as well as costs to the British Empire, which is not a political point but historical judgment.’ Tudor historian and fellow television presenter David Starkey was typically forthright – ‘Does this man go to the archive, or is he just a parasite on historians?’ – whilst Paula Kitching from the Historical Association was slightly more conciliatory, stating that ‘We don’t want to throw insults backwards and forwards. But I’m surprised that he wants to attack history. There are many different kinds of historian out there and, whether he likes it or not, he’s falling into that category himself now.’ This remarkable spat raises questions about the way history is researched, written and used, particularly in schools. Bias is the key to the argument, with Deary accusing all historians of pursuing their own personal agenda, whilst falling into exactly the same trap himself with his confession that ‘I write anti-establishment rants. I make no claim to be writing objective history.’ Yet it is actually very hard to be objective as a historian because, as Ferguson correctly states, their skill lies in scrutinizing countless documents, previously written works and often biased eye-witness accounts of events before weighing up the evidence and portraying what, in their opinion, actually happened. It’s no co-incidence that the origin of the word ‘history’ derives from the French word histoire, meaning story – essentially we are all story-tellers, groping into the darkness of the past to recreate a sense of what actually happened because only the people who were there at the time were privy to that information. Yet some of Deary’s comments strike a chord with the work of the family historian. He states that ‘when I start to study history … I find out the way in which common people have been manipulated, beaten, bullied and abused down the ages. Someone needs to stand up for them.’ Whilst I’m not suggesting that our ancestors all suffered such a fate, they certainly tend to be the victims of neglect in our national story, airbrushed out to make way for the kings and queens, aristocrats and politicians, military leaders and captains of commerce. The top- down approach tends to be eschewed by the family historian for the bottom-up view of local community, made relevant by our ancestors, who were servants and agricultural labourers, soldiers and factory workers. Personally, I don’t agree with Deary’s verdict on historians – well, I wouldn’t, I suppose, because I hail from their ranks and am therefore biased – but his comments indirectly highlight the importance of the family historian at national level, to tell the lost stories of how national events impacted upon everyday lives, and in schools. Ultimately, a blended approach is required. We need Horrible Histories to fire our children’s imagination, who then progress to the works of professional historians to understand the framework of events that have shaped our world. However, history becomes relevant when we start to see the past through the eyes of our ancestors, as well as providing children with the skills and opportunities they require to try investigating history for themselves. AUGUST 2010 YOUR FAMILY HISTORY Horrible History THE LAST WORD Our ancestors tend to be the victims of neglect in our national story… DO YOU LOVE OR LOATHE Horrible Histories or historians? What’s your view on the way history is taught in schools? Send us your comments via the form at www.your-familyhistory.com/yourstories.
-
Upload
your-family-history -
Category
Documents
-
view
231 -
download
0
description
Nick Barratt debates the value of using family history to unravel our national past and educate our children.
Transcript of Horrible History
74
Terry Deary is the author behind the HorribleHistories series, some of the most successfulchildren’s history books in, well, history. Hisworks have inspired a renaissance in the
classroom, with his portrayal of the grotty bits of our pasttranslating into an increased interest in the subject as morepupils are choosing history at GCSE and A Level.
Yet in The Times on 31 May, Deary claimed that historywas ‘the seediest profession I’ve worked in’ and thathistorians are ‘devious’ because ‘they pick on a particularangle and they select their facts to prove the case andmake a name for themselves … They don’t write straighthistory. They don’t write objective history.’ Ratherastonishingly, he singled out Professor Niall Ferguson forcriticism – one of the most respected academic historians,who has also forged a successful television career –stating that Ferguson was ‘obnoxious’ and a ‘deeplyoffensive right-wing man who uses history to get across apolitical point’ because he wrote a book ‘to prove that theBritish Empire was a good thing’.
Rather unsurprisingly, this hassparked a war of words. Ferguson’sriposte was that ‘I have read someof the Horrible Histories to mychildren, along with Harry Potter,The Hobbit and many otherchildren’s books. They’re quitefunny. And so is this … [My] bookargued that there were benefits aswell as costs to the British Empire, which is not apolitical point but historical judgment.’ Tudor historianand fellow television presenter David Starkey wastypically forthright – ‘Does this man go to the archive, oris he just a parasite on historians?’ – whilst PaulaKitching from the Historical Association was slightlymore conciliatory, stating that ‘We don’t want to throwinsults backwards and forwards. But I’m surprised thathe wants to attack history. There are many differentkinds of historian out there and, whether he likes it ornot, he’s falling into that category himself now.’
This remarkable spat raises questions about the wayhistory is researched, written and used, particularly inschools. Bias is the key to the argument, with Dearyaccusing all historians of pursuing their own personalagenda, whilst falling into exactly the same trap himselfwith his confession that ‘I write anti-establishment rants.I make no claim to be writing objective history.’ Yet it isactually very hard to be objective as a historian because,as Ferguson correctly states, their skill lies in
scrutinizing countless documents, previously writtenworks and often biased eye-witness accounts of eventsbefore weighing up the evidence and portraying what,in their opinion, actually happened. It’s no co-incidencethat the origin of the word ‘history’ derives from theFrench word histoire, meaning story – essentially we areall story-tellers, groping into the darkness of the past torecreate a sense of what actually happened because onlythe people who were there at the time were privy to thatinformation.
Yet some of Deary’s comments strike a chord with thework of the family historian. He states that ‘when I startto study history … I find out the way in which commonpeople have been manipulated, beaten, bullied andabused down the ages. Someone needs to stand up forthem.’ Whilst I’m not suggesting that our ancestors allsuffered such a fate, they certainly tend to be the victimsof neglect in our national story, airbrushed out to makeway for the kings and queens, aristocrats and politicians,military leaders and captains of commerce. The top-
down approach tends to beeschewed by the family historianfor the bottom-up view of localcommunity, made relevant by ourancestors, who were servants andagricultural labourers, soldiers andfactory workers.
Personally, I don’t agree withDeary’s verdict on historians –
well, I wouldn’t, I suppose, because I hail from theirranks and am therefore biased – but his commentsindirectly highlight the importance of the familyhistorian at national level, to tell the lost stories of hownational events impacted upon everyday lives, and inschools. Ultimately, a blended approach is required. Weneed Horrible Histories to fire our children’s imagination,who then progress to the works of professionalhistorians to understand the framework of events thathave shaped our world. However, history becomesrelevant when we start to see the past through the eyesof our ancestors, as well as providing children with theskills and opportunities they require to try investigatinghistory for themselves.
AU G U S T 2 0 1 0 YO U R FA M I LY H I S TO RY
Horrible History
T H E L A S T W O R D
Our ancestors tendto be the victims ofneglect in ournational story…
DO YOU LOVE OR LOATHE Horrible Histories or historians?What’s your view on the way history is taught in schools? Send us your comments via the form at www.your-familyhistory.com/yourstories.
LAST WORD NICK 74 6/7/10 12:57 Page 74
