Τι είναι ιστορία σήμερα;

by David Cannadine (Editor), Κώστας Αθανασίου (Translator), Paul Cartledge

Σαράντα χρόνια μετά την έκδοση του κλασικού βιβλίου του Ε.Η. Carr "Τι είναι ιστορία;" οι συγγραφείς του τόμου θέτουν ξανά το ερώτημα γύρω από τη φύση της επιστήμης της ιστορίας, την ιδιαίτερη ανάπτυξη των κλάδων της και τις κατευθύνσεις της ιστορικής έρευνας υπό τις σημερινές συνθήκες. «Αν κανείς ήθελε να δώσει ένα ανάλογο του "Τι είναι ιστορία;" του Carr για τον πρώιμο 21ο αιώνα, αυτό θα ήταν οπωσδήποτε το βιβλίο του Cannadine". David Armitage «Το "Τι είναι ιστορία σήμερα;" αποτελεί μια επίκαιρη επισκόπηση των ιστορικών συζητήσεων σήμερα και μια εμπεριστατωμένη διερεύνηση των σύγχρονων τάσεων και αγωνιών». Norman Davis

Genres: History, Nonfiction

297 pages

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Sir David Cannadine FBA FRSL FSA FRHistS is a British author and historian, who specialises in modern history and the history of business and philanthropy.

Reviews

[Ahmed Salim · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب جيد يبحث عن اجابة سؤال للباحث "كار" منذ اربعين عاما ما التاريخ الآن ؟ ..
واجاب عنه عدد من الباحثين ليشمل عدد وصور للتاريخ المختلفة ..مثل التاريخ الثقافى ، الفكرى ،الاجتماعى و النوعى ...
هو اضافة جيدة لمجمل الافكار و الاطروحات ..ويعظم دور التواصل العلمى والفكرى بين الاجيال ويعزز اواصر الترابط ...رغم ان معظمه يتحدث بصفة خاصة عن بريطانيا كمثال ...الا انه تحرر فى بغض الفصول وخاطب العالمية ...
اطروحات جيدة لكنها ليست دسمة او مؤسسة لعمل حضارى يشرع لبداية ...للتاريخ اجمالا ..
هو فقط إجابة عن سؤال بطريقة محلية ..

[Allison · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book interesting in that it said it criticized English history as being self-centered, yet the whole book was about English history. I do not think Carr would have been too happy with this book as he wanted history to move beyond England to the world.

[Beele · Rating 3 out of 5]

does what it says on the tin

[Julia · Rating 1 out of 5]

I despised most of this book, but I must say, I am not a British Marxist historian, I do not care for the politics or principles of the British Marxist historians, and some of the articles in this book were difficult reading due to a failure to enunciate and articulate just exactly what they had researched and what viewpoint they were making. I did like Linda Colley's article on Imperial History and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's Epilogue. By forcing this text on American history students, I see universities tyring to force British politics on America, and that Britain is the center of historiography of the Western world. While I enjoy England and the UK, their politics is not American politics, nor is it the right way, or the route in which American history and politics should follow. I am glad I paid only $2.95; otherwise, I would have felt robbed and tortured.

[Tom Darrow · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book for a graduate level class about the reading and writing of history. We read it in conjunction with parts of E.H. Carr's original. I enjoyed Carr, but the Cannadine collection was fairly dreadful. It's most of the things that people HATE about history... lots of intellectual terms that aren't explained, authors using fancy vocabulary when a simple word would do the job much better and references to dozens of authors whom I will never read (especially if they are as stuffy and intellectual as the readings in this book).

The book has a few flashes of interest, like the section on cultural history, but, for the most part, it leaves the reader thinking that what history is now... is boring.

[Caroline McMaster · Rating 2 out of 5]

The last three chapters saved this rating from being a one.

[Mervat · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب مفيد رغم تشابه بعض المفاهيم، وتكرار لجدال تاريخي قرأته من قبل.
لكنى استفدت من الفصول الخاصة بتاريخ الفكر والثقافة وطريقة طرح الأفكار والمفاهيم..

أما عن المترجم (قاسم عبده قاسم)، فبجانب إسهاماته الأكاديمية، لازم أشكره على مجهوده المميز فى الترجمة. لكن لم أحب انتقاده لتاريخ النوع فى مقدمة الكتاب، وعدم تفضيله للكتابة النسوية، بحجة إن المرأة ليس لها تاريخ منفصل عن الرجل!.. لم أفهم تلك النقطة، خصوصًا إن الكتابات النسوية أو التأريخ للحركة النسوية أو التأريخ للمرأة بشكل عام فى فترة ما أو عصر من العصور لست محاولة للتمركز حول الذات أكتر ما هى تركيز وإبراز أكثر لدور المرأة أو محاولة لسرد وتفسير أحوالها..
..لأنها تستحق يعنى!

وهناك الكثير من الدراسات الصادرة عن المركز القومى للترجمة متخصصة فى تاريخ النوع أظن إنها مفيدة جدًا، وفى الفترة دى بحاول أجمع أكبر قدر منها ...
فالصراحة هذه سقطة منه، ككاتب وباحث كبير!.

[Gina · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't hate it, but I didn't find this work particularly valuable either. This volume is obviously aimed at other academic historians, but would it kill people to illustrate their points more fully? That is, beyond citing British historiography in essays about moving past a parochial focus on British history...

[Kaleb · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reread this book for the first time since an undergraduate course as I prepare to begin graduate school. Some chapters are definitely worthwhile for students of history, but some chapters are so jargon-filled that they are easy to get lost in.

[Classic · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book introducing people to a wide range of subjects and types of history. I read most of it in one day and found it a fascinating account about the various aspects of history, such as how it has changed over time, what different schools of history are and what it is.

[Βασίλης Πλαΐτης · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 στα 5. Αρκετά ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο (ειδικά τα κεφάλαια πολιτικής και διανοητικής ιστορίας)
, αφορά ωστόσο εν πολλοίς εξελίξεις στη Βρετανία (και λιγότερο στις ΗΠΑ), ένα κόσμο που διανοητικά ίσως είναι κάπως μακριά από τα τρέχοντα ελληνικά ενδιαφέροντα.

[Pinko Palest · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is what you get when put some centrist historians, some of whom might have been on the left in the past, together for a conference. Hard core melts

[Alessia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Libro molto accademico, ma con un inglese semplice e scorrevole. Letto per un esame universitario

[Ignacio CM · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book provoked me a question: what is history now? I still don't know the answer

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book again for the second time about a year and a half later and not in the context of cramming for a PhD comprehensive exam, I can much more fully appreciate what it seeks to do and succeeds at. Reading this as a response to Carr’s classic book gives it weight and I think any historian would benefit from really giving the chapter on their sub-field a close reading and personalized response based on their own work. It’s very intellectually fruitful. Now that I’m doing my research, looking back at the intellectual history chapter as well as the prologue and reflection on Carr is very stimulating.

[Zara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Parts of this were very interesting indeed. The introduction was especially good on EH Carr, and there were elements of all the chapters I found intriguing. However some historians wrote in a very mangled way, not actually making many points or following a line of argument. I found it irritating at times. However this is definitely a must-read for people wanting to study History at university, and it is more accessible for students than some other weightier tomes.