The What Is History? Book by E.H. Carr

Table of Contents

Introduction
Evaluating an Historical Account of Political Events
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

In his book What is History? historian E.H. Carr explores the idea that history is not an accurate record of past events but rather a subjective interpretation shaped by the historians biases, values, and perspectives. Through his examination of the nature of history and its evaluation, Carr offers a unique perspective on the study of history and its impact on ones understanding of the past. This essay will summarize Carrs argument on the nature of history and its evaluation and explore the implications of his view for the understanding of history.

Evaluating an Historical Account of Political Events

Carr argues that history is not an accurate representation of past events but rather how the historian perceives and interprets events. He highlights several stages that must be considered when evaluating historical accounts (Carr, 1961). Firstly, historians must take the sources reliability, biases, and limitations into account. Secondly, the historians personal and professional biases and opinions must be considered. Thirdly, the context in which events occurred, such as the period, cultural, social factors, and political climate, must be taken into account. Finally, the limitations of the historical account and the potential for alternative interpretations of events should be acknowledged (Carr, 1961). Despite the subjectivity of history, Carr suggests that objectivity is possible to attain. He believes that by critically evaluating sources and being aware of the historians biases, values, and perspectives, the influence of personal beliefs on historical accounts can be reduced (Carr, 1961). Adopting a critical and reflective approach to historical reading works can increase awareness of the limitations of historical accounts and the potential for alternative interpretations of events.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Carrs view of history as a subjective interpretation of past events challenges the traditional notion of history as an objective record of what happened. He argues that it is essential to consider the sources, biases, and context when evaluating historical accounts and to strive toward a more balanced and nuanced interpretation of past events. This view of history encourages a critical and reflective approach to read historical works and a deeper understanding of the limitations of historical records.