What do you think?
Rate this book
Telling the Truth About History
Criticizes popular approaches to history, argues that it is worthwhile to pursue historical fact, and shows how to incorporate the overlooked roles of women and minorities when recreating the past.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
43 people are currently reading
460 people want to read
About the author
Joyce Appleby
115 books46 followersJoyce Oldham Appleby, Ph.D. (Claremont Graduate School, 1966; B.A., Stanford University, 1950), is professor of history at University of California, Los Angeles. She previously taught at San Diego State University, 1967–1981. She was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1993, and was president of the Organization of American Historians (1991) and the American Historical Association (1997).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
November 16, 2008
Kind of interesting, but when the authors get the point of talking about post-modernism and especially Derrida I had to put aside most of their thoughts and opinions as ill informed and not much more than a popular and superficial reading of his work. The fact that all the information they site on Derrida, Nietzsche (ok, there is one super inflammatory quote they pull from Freddy)and Heideggar come from second hand sources or the opinions of some mysterious persons who have explained this too them makes their critique of the post-modern project kind of weak, and since this was the only part of the book I actually had a good grounding in it makes me wonder about the other parts of the book and the validity of what they are saying. I would expect Historians to goto the original sources of the material they are discussing and not rely solely on others interpretations of the material. But the book does make some interesting observations on the way epistemology has been viewed by history, and even if I don't philosophically agree with the pragmatic turn they make at the end the book did open up some nice avenues of thought. Plus it's so damn cute when social scientists and people like historians really try to defend their discipline as being scientifically objective (that's not quite fair, they do move away from this towards their final conclusion, but the structure of residual positivism is still left).
May 13, 2020
I assigned this to my students in Historiography. It is very hard to find a good book on that subject, and virtually impossible to find one that takes in ethnic or national diversity in terms of historiography. This one is one of the best I’ve read but it ends in the 90s at the height of the cultural turn and post modern debates and my students know these ideas aren’t as compelling now as they once were—or they have so imbibed them as to not understand the debate anymore. I really want this book brought through to the present. Or someone to write another one that’s not just about European and white US men from the 19th and 20th centuries.
June 23, 2011
This has been a paradigm changing book for me because it sets, not entirely precisely, the theories of history in American education. I have read a more scholarly historiography in the past five years, but this book reveals the American battle-ground of historical pedagogy.
At the time American farms were dying out, we got the myth of the American Frontiersman, men born freely and of equal rational faculties, going forth in their Conestoga wagons, the Palace on wheels, with a Bible in one hand and a rifle for killing Indians in the other. Most of us, in our lived experiences, believe that some of us have more collateral in the mind than others, or at least that we have specific weaknesses, yet we buy into the romantic notion of the Frontier Man, and the solo scientific Genius. The Frontier men were going to plow the seas of grassland, an action which later led to the Dust Bowl. The advance troops were the Union Army remainders(anyone remember "Branded" a TV series?). So they killed off the Plains Indians, and history changed them into the advance troops who would respond to hostile threats to the US. The frontier image is familiar from my childhood, the "buffalo soldiers" used to invade the Philippines more from a postmodern university education. What is interesting to me is the eulogy of a former way of life, romanticized and used for current concerns.
Some of the questions this book poses are these-Do you think history is simply remembering the dates of battles and antagonistic rulers? Or does it matter who was displaced, moved to a different country and had an influence there that they might not have in their native land? Take heart all those who feel dispossessed, you may have been deported to a place where you can be heard. It has often been those displaced by war who have lead technology and military industrial achievements, and other cultural flowerings. The authors lean toward the democratic, and the importance of immigration.
Science is challenged for not being objective. When one observes who is doing the science, the personal always has a bearing on the outcomes sought and achieved. This is also true of the "Scientific revolution" which as fueled by Hugenot refugees like Hawksbee, Newton's clever experiment designer, just as refugees opposed Fascism and fueled the atomic revolution. The cognitive break here is that the root of Facism is collaboration-just think of the facia of muscles. By the same tenet, the current social historians have taken, comprehending that "no man is an island" in his cognitive processes resulted in the defeat of the Heroic "Frontier man" model of scientific achievements.
I needed to return to the chapters on postmodernism, because the term gives me an intellectual rash. One of the causes of my irritation is that the term is so loosely defined, and usually slung about slanderously. I've worn that hairy label myself because of an interdisciplinary education, and it turns out one much influenced by the changing demography of professors, which failed to alter my impression that I was Barbarian at the gates of the civilizing institution, decked in fur and feathers. I don't object to the metaphorical sartorial habits, as much as the presumption that I was heavily armed and quite dangerous. It's true my over-riding sense of loyalty is to my own sense of wonder and curiousity, undimmed by any of this.
Reading Telling the Truth clarified the origins of the term and why it is so politically charged. At the core of their argument the authors acknowledge that they were part of the feminization wave of the universities which occurred at about the same time as race lines were challenged by new admission policies. These instructors were my teachers and the questions they had about the old dead white male paradigm seemed valid. Given that few of my professors ever received tenure, it was clear the masculine paradigm was still largely in place, although the curriculum had changed. Twenty years later its much easier to understand the forces that were operative in my undergraduate education, and this book put that struggle into historical perspective, like another I read several years ago: History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past.
One of the struggles I have experienced in my lengthy stay in colleges and universities is the difficulty getting a grounding in the DWM- for instance I have read many reactions to Augustine, but have never read Augustine. And while it is true that I am entirely capable of sitting down and reading, say, The City of God, I will not benefit from a solo reading as much as I might in a seminar where Augustine's conversation with Aristotle might be discussed. And also the current tensions of his day, and what the language he used meant at the time he employed it--I am not of the school that says, lets dismiss this indiviudal because he didn't have a concept of ecology, or because he presumed that women were incapable of rational thought--these are projects of my time. And I cannot say that the text speaks only for the reader's contemporary comprehension-John Donne's poem about the compass feet makes no sense if you are only able to understand a compass a dial indicating direction, or even a drafting tool used to draw circles rather than measure a map. Lest my alma matters and fellow graduates be offended by this frustration, I was assigned and read "snippets" of both of these philosophers. Unfortunately I felt this occured without much discussion of their relationship to the body of the author's work or the historical context beyond the century date-stamp, something we owe to any earlier way of periodizing history conveniently. With Augustine I know this to be very flexible because his opinions changed over time. This flexibility was part of his appeal, according to some of the history I have read. But here I am, stalled on the A's in the my Personal Dictionary of Ignorance, partially because I consider these essential dead white men neglected, yet still necessary to understand the comprehension of certain post-Catholic feminist theologians with a just mind. Their anger I understand clearly.
At the core of these "history wars" is too many books and too little time, especially in the classroom. Information overload started at about the time the printing press was invented, although I am sure some scribe with an aching hand would have some other opinions. Then there is the regretable military-industrial language that is used to describe the discussion. It would be much nicer to say that I came of intellectual age in the middle of a renaissance period of history where strict alligiance to laboratory science as a model was expanded to include anthropological techniques, psychological insights, voices from sources previously marginalized, and transcending a "might makes right" form of truth telling. As mysterious as physics may be, no person is as dead as an atom, and even considering particles recently discovered strangeness at being observed, people are a thousand times less predictable. We have many motives, and in the Western world where history is heavily influenced by JudeoChristianIslamic notions of time as a flowing forth, we also have a sense of having a history, and perhaps a place in that history. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing with DWM.
At the time American farms were dying out, we got the myth of the American Frontiersman, men born freely and of equal rational faculties, going forth in their Conestoga wagons, the Palace on wheels, with a Bible in one hand and a rifle for killing Indians in the other. Most of us, in our lived experiences, believe that some of us have more collateral in the mind than others, or at least that we have specific weaknesses, yet we buy into the romantic notion of the Frontier Man, and the solo scientific Genius. The Frontier men were going to plow the seas of grassland, an action which later led to the Dust Bowl. The advance troops were the Union Army remainders(anyone remember "Branded" a TV series?). So they killed off the Plains Indians, and history changed them into the advance troops who would respond to hostile threats to the US. The frontier image is familiar from my childhood, the "buffalo soldiers" used to invade the Philippines more from a postmodern university education. What is interesting to me is the eulogy of a former way of life, romanticized and used for current concerns.
Some of the questions this book poses are these-Do you think history is simply remembering the dates of battles and antagonistic rulers? Or does it matter who was displaced, moved to a different country and had an influence there that they might not have in their native land? Take heart all those who feel dispossessed, you may have been deported to a place where you can be heard. It has often been those displaced by war who have lead technology and military industrial achievements, and other cultural flowerings. The authors lean toward the democratic, and the importance of immigration.
Science is challenged for not being objective. When one observes who is doing the science, the personal always has a bearing on the outcomes sought and achieved. This is also true of the "Scientific revolution" which as fueled by Hugenot refugees like Hawksbee, Newton's clever experiment designer, just as refugees opposed Fascism and fueled the atomic revolution. The cognitive break here is that the root of Facism is collaboration-just think of the facia of muscles. By the same tenet, the current social historians have taken, comprehending that "no man is an island" in his cognitive processes resulted in the defeat of the Heroic "Frontier man" model of scientific achievements.
I needed to return to the chapters on postmodernism, because the term gives me an intellectual rash. One of the causes of my irritation is that the term is so loosely defined, and usually slung about slanderously. I've worn that hairy label myself because of an interdisciplinary education, and it turns out one much influenced by the changing demography of professors, which failed to alter my impression that I was Barbarian at the gates of the civilizing institution, decked in fur and feathers. I don't object to the metaphorical sartorial habits, as much as the presumption that I was heavily armed and quite dangerous. It's true my over-riding sense of loyalty is to my own sense of wonder and curiousity, undimmed by any of this.
Reading Telling the Truth clarified the origins of the term and why it is so politically charged. At the core of their argument the authors acknowledge that they were part of the feminization wave of the universities which occurred at about the same time as race lines were challenged by new admission policies. These instructors were my teachers and the questions they had about the old dead white male paradigm seemed valid. Given that few of my professors ever received tenure, it was clear the masculine paradigm was still largely in place, although the curriculum had changed. Twenty years later its much easier to understand the forces that were operative in my undergraduate education, and this book put that struggle into historical perspective, like another I read several years ago: History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past.
One of the struggles I have experienced in my lengthy stay in colleges and universities is the difficulty getting a grounding in the DWM- for instance I have read many reactions to Augustine, but have never read Augustine. And while it is true that I am entirely capable of sitting down and reading, say, The City of God, I will not benefit from a solo reading as much as I might in a seminar where Augustine's conversation with Aristotle might be discussed. And also the current tensions of his day, and what the language he used meant at the time he employed it--I am not of the school that says, lets dismiss this indiviudal because he didn't have a concept of ecology, or because he presumed that women were incapable of rational thought--these are projects of my time. And I cannot say that the text speaks only for the reader's contemporary comprehension-John Donne's poem about the compass feet makes no sense if you are only able to understand a compass a dial indicating direction, or even a drafting tool used to draw circles rather than measure a map. Lest my alma matters and fellow graduates be offended by this frustration, I was assigned and read "snippets" of both of these philosophers. Unfortunately I felt this occured without much discussion of their relationship to the body of the author's work or the historical context beyond the century date-stamp, something we owe to any earlier way of periodizing history conveniently. With Augustine I know this to be very flexible because his opinions changed over time. This flexibility was part of his appeal, according to some of the history I have read. But here I am, stalled on the A's in the my Personal Dictionary of Ignorance, partially because I consider these essential dead white men neglected, yet still necessary to understand the comprehension of certain post-Catholic feminist theologians with a just mind. Their anger I understand clearly.
At the core of these "history wars" is too many books and too little time, especially in the classroom. Information overload started at about the time the printing press was invented, although I am sure some scribe with an aching hand would have some other opinions. Then there is the regretable military-industrial language that is used to describe the discussion. It would be much nicer to say that I came of intellectual age in the middle of a renaissance period of history where strict alligiance to laboratory science as a model was expanded to include anthropological techniques, psychological insights, voices from sources previously marginalized, and transcending a "might makes right" form of truth telling. As mysterious as physics may be, no person is as dead as an atom, and even considering particles recently discovered strangeness at being observed, people are a thousand times less predictable. We have many motives, and in the Western world where history is heavily influenced by JudeoChristianIslamic notions of time as a flowing forth, we also have a sense of having a history, and perhaps a place in that history. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing with DWM.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 19, 2021
This book was dense but it was interesting. It explores how perceptions and practices of science since the Enlightenment until today have impacted the study of history. In the Enlightenment, people had this idea of the "heroic model of science" - that a person with a purely rational and objective mind can attain the absolute truth about something, and this was applied to history. But then, both in science and other fields, people started to become disillusioned and realized that it's impossible for anyone to be fully objective. One interesting point was that even Newton, one of the greatest Enlightenment scholars, was very religious and hence not purely objective (he even rejected some contemporary scholars' theories out of fear that they'd lead to atheism!). But the authors point out that despite not being objective, Newton discovered certain truths that benefited the whole world for centuries. So, contrary to what postmodernism and relativism would tell us today, certain truths are able to be attained--we shouldn't lose all hope. By acknowledging our subjectivities, understanding that different perspectives do not deny the possibility of attaining the truth but instead show different parts of it, and using the scientific method to study facts as objectively as possible, historians will start to uncover historical truths that help us understand our present experiences.
November 12, 2024
Couldn’t say enough great things about this book. It’s my first foray into the philosophy of history/historiography and it was a perfect introduction. This book is only 300 pages but is packed with information. It demands a slow read to really appreciate and absorb all that’s being discussed and argued.
About 80% of the book is a history of history as a science/subject and the last 20% is the authors’ views and call to action on how we should approach the science of writing and studying history.
About 80% of the book is a history of history as a science/subject and the last 20% is the authors’ views and call to action on how we should approach the science of writing and studying history.
April 28, 2018
Honestly not worth the time. I'm disappointed because I read this book for class and it feels out-of-date, hyperbolic, and top-heavy. The two portions worth reading are Chapters 7 & 8, if only because they synthesize the authors' argument about the future of history. The book focuses too much time on fighting against extreme postmodernism and lazy history-writing (though perhaps the year this book was written called for such a polemic). Today, though, the historical discipline has leveled out enough that their arguments seem exaggerated and overdrawn. Furthermore, the authors' intense focus on Big Science's influence on modern thought absorbs most of the first two sections and still isn't convincing. The authors do make various good points throughout, but it's not worth reading the whole thing.
September 6, 2019
Very heavy on the historical theory
January 31, 2012
Well written and informative but please, God, let me never read this book again.
June 24, 2021
This book is about historiography or how we gain knowledge in order to write history, to begin with, and the different approaches contained therein. It starts with the earliest accounts of history and then explores how the profession has developed over time. There have been different approaches and methods for writing about history over time and the authors explore how the major trends developed and how they influence how we view history and the past. While no historical account is an exact portrayal of the past in all its infinite detail, the authors make the case for the importance of it all the same. History enriches our view of the world while raising deeper and more probing questions in its research. It has grown as our society has grown and it is this growth and the important questions that it raises that make it still relevant to us today. This is an academic book but it is still clearly written and would be useful for anyone interested in the actual practice of history and the many different approaches to this dynamic academic field.
July 31, 2025
Of the hundred's of books written about the questions posed in historiography, this book is 1) the most accessible 2) presents the best nuanced critique of the postmodernists' "despairing view of the world." The book argues that the qualified objective knowledge IS possible, and that this CAN coexist with multiple perspectives and nuance. The authors argue that "as relativism recedes" that history can flourish and they call for future historians to find this balance.
The book, written in 1995, was optimistic about the future of history. I notice that there predictions, or calls to the field, came to fruition but mostly in academia. Obviously, the public is more polarized, less nuanced, than ever. Will social media and AI increasingly push us toward a simplified, binary history, leaving historians careful work more marginalized than ever?
The book, written in 1995, was optimistic about the future of history. I notice that there predictions, or calls to the field, came to fruition but mostly in academia. Obviously, the public is more polarized, less nuanced, than ever. Will social media and AI increasingly push us toward a simplified, binary history, leaving historians careful work more marginalized than ever?
August 9, 2025
Setting up the history of American historical/philosophy of history thought was a very interesting and thought clarifying experience for me. It is one thing to know the philosophy of history writing/learning, it is completely another to study the interplay between them. I hope an updated version will be published soon to cover the last 30 years which bring back a lot of the issues provided and addressed within the book.
September 4, 2017
Good look on how to approach history
This book was at times dense, requiring all my attention and all the caffeine, but overall, it was a solid look at the philosophies behind teaching history, why objectivism is crucial, and how we have evolved in our understanding of history over the centuries.
This book was at times dense, requiring all my attention and all the caffeine, but overall, it was a solid look at the philosophies behind teaching history, why objectivism is crucial, and how we have evolved in our understanding of history over the centuries.
December 1, 2022
this book was another read for my historiography class, and while also being one of the more accessible texts, it was a SLOG. insane. has some pretty good ideas about historiographical concepts, but i would never read this for pleasure.
December 16, 2025
Too long for what it’s attempting to do. If it were meant to stake out a historiographical position, it should have been a 70-page monograph with a stronger thesis. Instead, we got a rather flabby undergraduate survey of trends in historical thinking since the Enlightenment.
December 22, 2025
Shout out Turley for making me read this
Read
December 9, 2016Telling the Truth about History was published in 1994 by W.W.Norton & Company. This book was written by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob. All three authors are historians at the University of California. In the Introduction of this book on page 9 the authors state the purpose as enlightening the readers about the relationship between history and science, objectivity, postmodernism, and politics in democracy influence on identity. However, it is important to remember that these explanations are bias due to the Western American view. This book was meant for college students as well. Telling the Truth About History incorporates the relation to history in the sixth chapter allowing for students to follow and understand the interconnections, however, it struggles in its frequent loss of focus and examples throughout the beginning and has a misleading title in the last chapter.
Telling the Truth About History focuses on the history of history. It follows history's progress through time and attempts to explain the ideals and abstract concepts of the time in connection to history. The book starts on the focus of sciences role of the development of history. It then progresses its timeline to the american western focus on history and science and modernistic ideals influence on the study of this subject. Lastly, it finishes with a focus on the truth and objectivity of history with a last chapter focusing on future of history might be going.
The strengths of this book include the theme of the connections and development of history. In Chapter Six, "Postmodernism and the Crisis of Modernity" this strength is at its greatest. It uses the correct balances of explanation, examples, and then the importance or link to history to best relate to the reader. The authors also clearly describe the concepts that they want the reader to grasp out of this section. For example, on page 200 in explains a social historian, their views, and then gives an example. The book then continues on making an effective transition into the postmodernism beliefs and effects. Due to the attention to explanation and detail, readers can better not only grasp the concept of what is being read but also the authors interpretation of it.
The weaknesses of this book include the loss of focus in the beginning of the book and the misleading title to the last chapter. Within the first two chapters the concept that the book is focused on history is often lost in the in depth details and focus on the evolution of science, its ideals, and its influences. The authors miss opportunities to link it back to the focus of history, reminding the reader of the connection between the science and history subjects. Another area of misleading is the last chapter of the book titled, "The Future of History." For the majority of the chapter is it unclear of the authors point of view on the future of history. When reading this title the reader believes the authors will be covering their idea of were history is headed or were it needs to go. Instead it delves back into the past of education, once again missing opportunities to remind authors of their focus of history. While it is hinted that more focus on a multicultural curriculum should be the focus and different aspects should be incorporated, it can be possible to miss due to the lack of incorporation of these ideas.
In conclusion, this book shows great incorporation and links to history in the sixth chapter that engages readers to the thoughts and ideals of postmodernism and modernity, it lacks in the beginning and end of the book to bring in the connection of the focus of history into these sections. This book allows for great connections to different ideals and philosophers that influences science and history as they developed. The book allows for a reader to understand more abstract concepts of history to be introduced and understood. In the overall of the book it allows readers to follow the path of the development of history. This book is a great read and expands knowledge of different ideals, biases, and abstract conceptions.
Telling the Truth About History focuses on the history of history. It follows history's progress through time and attempts to explain the ideals and abstract concepts of the time in connection to history. The book starts on the focus of sciences role of the development of history. It then progresses its timeline to the american western focus on history and science and modernistic ideals influence on the study of this subject. Lastly, it finishes with a focus on the truth and objectivity of history with a last chapter focusing on future of history might be going.
The strengths of this book include the theme of the connections and development of history. In Chapter Six, "Postmodernism and the Crisis of Modernity" this strength is at its greatest. It uses the correct balances of explanation, examples, and then the importance or link to history to best relate to the reader. The authors also clearly describe the concepts that they want the reader to grasp out of this section. For example, on page 200 in explains a social historian, their views, and then gives an example. The book then continues on making an effective transition into the postmodernism beliefs and effects. Due to the attention to explanation and detail, readers can better not only grasp the concept of what is being read but also the authors interpretation of it.
The weaknesses of this book include the loss of focus in the beginning of the book and the misleading title to the last chapter. Within the first two chapters the concept that the book is focused on history is often lost in the in depth details and focus on the evolution of science, its ideals, and its influences. The authors miss opportunities to link it back to the focus of history, reminding the reader of the connection between the science and history subjects. Another area of misleading is the last chapter of the book titled, "The Future of History." For the majority of the chapter is it unclear of the authors point of view on the future of history. When reading this title the reader believes the authors will be covering their idea of were history is headed or were it needs to go. Instead it delves back into the past of education, once again missing opportunities to remind authors of their focus of history. While it is hinted that more focus on a multicultural curriculum should be the focus and different aspects should be incorporated, it can be possible to miss due to the lack of incorporation of these ideas.
In conclusion, this book shows great incorporation and links to history in the sixth chapter that engages readers to the thoughts and ideals of postmodernism and modernity, it lacks in the beginning and end of the book to bring in the connection of the focus of history into these sections. This book allows for great connections to different ideals and philosophers that influences science and history as they developed. The book allows for a reader to understand more abstract concepts of history to be introduced and understood. In the overall of the book it allows readers to follow the path of the development of history. This book is a great read and expands knowledge of different ideals, biases, and abstract conceptions.
December 10, 2016
Historians Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob wrote Telling the Truth About History to inform readers about the evolution of historical writing throughout the United States’ past, and to help people better understand the nation’s current historical and political climate. W. W. Norton and Company then published the first, and current, edition in 1994, in the city of New York. The book thoroughly outlines the history of history, while being sure to include multiple perspectives, although it undermines its title with the arguments that it makes within the text.
Telling the Truth About History is divided into three parts: Intellectual Absolutism, Absolutisms Dethroned, and A New Republic of Learning. In the first part, the book discusses the original, scientific origins of history, detailing out the field’s linear and philosophical roots. The second part explains history’s break from science and the rise of postmodernism, making the field more open and subjective. The final part looks to the current state of historical evaluation and makes projections about its future.
The book does an exceptional job of being very thorough in its analysis of multiple perspectives of the field of history. It attempts to include any detail that might be relevant, trying to show a complete, well-rounded version of the story. Through this search for well-roundedness, it strives, and successfully, to include as many perspectives as possible, even those that the authors do not agree with. This versatility makes Telling the Truth About History extremely enlightening to read, and not terribly biased.
However, this book defies its own argument by claiming in the title that there can exist a truth about history. Throughout the “Absolutisms Dethroned” section, it explains in detail that every work of history is only one historian’s personal interpretation of the past, and thus, it argues, there can be no true, objective history. This solidarity for relativism makes the title of Telling the Truth About History misleading in its claim that one single truth can exist on any subject, let alone history itself.
In conclusion, Telling the Truth About History is an extremely enlightening read for anyone interested in history, as it does an exceptional job of thoroughly explaining the multiple perspectives of the evolution of the field, although its text and title are inconsistent in their arguments. It is a valuable resource to gain new understanding of the past, and insight into the way history is currently recorded. All in all, I would rate this book at four out of five stars, because I found it extremely enlightening even with its flaws.
Telling the Truth About History is divided into three parts: Intellectual Absolutism, Absolutisms Dethroned, and A New Republic of Learning. In the first part, the book discusses the original, scientific origins of history, detailing out the field’s linear and philosophical roots. The second part explains history’s break from science and the rise of postmodernism, making the field more open and subjective. The final part looks to the current state of historical evaluation and makes projections about its future.
The book does an exceptional job of being very thorough in its analysis of multiple perspectives of the field of history. It attempts to include any detail that might be relevant, trying to show a complete, well-rounded version of the story. Through this search for well-roundedness, it strives, and successfully, to include as many perspectives as possible, even those that the authors do not agree with. This versatility makes Telling the Truth About History extremely enlightening to read, and not terribly biased.
However, this book defies its own argument by claiming in the title that there can exist a truth about history. Throughout the “Absolutisms Dethroned” section, it explains in detail that every work of history is only one historian’s personal interpretation of the past, and thus, it argues, there can be no true, objective history. This solidarity for relativism makes the title of Telling the Truth About History misleading in its claim that one single truth can exist on any subject, let alone history itself.
In conclusion, Telling the Truth About History is an extremely enlightening read for anyone interested in history, as it does an exceptional job of thoroughly explaining the multiple perspectives of the evolution of the field, although its text and title are inconsistent in their arguments. It is a valuable resource to gain new understanding of the past, and insight into the way history is currently recorded. All in all, I would rate this book at four out of five stars, because I found it extremely enlightening even with its flaws.
December 9, 2016
The novel Telling the Truth About History by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob was published in 1995 by Norton Publishing in New York. Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob’s are historians at the University of California. They specifically wrote this book to educate undergraduate students that are studying history. Throughout the novel, it explains the complexity of history.
The book encompasses the very idea of history, illuminating the transformation of history through the times. They start off with explaining the connection between “hard sciences” and “soft sciences”. Explaining that although there they are viewed as completely different, most of these sciences are based off history. They then move on to describe the shift in mindset between the methods of studying history, until finally they discuss the future of history.
This book has a variety of strengths including the additions of subjectivity and the comparisons between other fields. Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob’s discuss multiple times throughout the book the idea that everything in history in subjective. This is because most research stems from a person’s interest and from there it will automatically have a subjective bias. They explain that this is important to acknowledge biases because it makes research more credible. Another strength to this book was the comparison between soft and hard sciences. This helps undergraduates understand that every field is interconnected.
This book although having multiple strengths has some weaknesses, including but not limited too; the fact that this is based off of the western world, and it may be too complex for the intended audience. The authors base this book off of the western world, leaving out the study of history anywhere else. This puts researchers at a disadvantage because they are only learning one way. Another flaw is that the writing may be too complex for the intended audience. This is because even though they are trying to teach theory, if the way the message is portrayed is too complex for the audience to understand then its purpose has not been met.
In conclusion, I ranked this book 4 out of 5 stars because for the most part the authors provide excellent insight into the world of history. However, the intricate portrayal of information makes it hard for people with little knowledge of theory to comprehend. I would recommend this book, because even though it is hard to understand at times, it provides a fantastic perception of the purpose of history.
The book encompasses the very idea of history, illuminating the transformation of history through the times. They start off with explaining the connection between “hard sciences” and “soft sciences”. Explaining that although there they are viewed as completely different, most of these sciences are based off history. They then move on to describe the shift in mindset between the methods of studying history, until finally they discuss the future of history.
This book has a variety of strengths including the additions of subjectivity and the comparisons between other fields. Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob’s discuss multiple times throughout the book the idea that everything in history in subjective. This is because most research stems from a person’s interest and from there it will automatically have a subjective bias. They explain that this is important to acknowledge biases because it makes research more credible. Another strength to this book was the comparison between soft and hard sciences. This helps undergraduates understand that every field is interconnected.
This book although having multiple strengths has some weaknesses, including but not limited too; the fact that this is based off of the western world, and it may be too complex for the intended audience. The authors base this book off of the western world, leaving out the study of history anywhere else. This puts researchers at a disadvantage because they are only learning one way. Another flaw is that the writing may be too complex for the intended audience. This is because even though they are trying to teach theory, if the way the message is portrayed is too complex for the audience to understand then its purpose has not been met.
In conclusion, I ranked this book 4 out of 5 stars because for the most part the authors provide excellent insight into the world of history. However, the intricate portrayal of information makes it hard for people with little knowledge of theory to comprehend. I would recommend this book, because even though it is hard to understand at times, it provides a fantastic perception of the purpose of history.
June 23, 2016
Interesting popular history on historiography. This book summarizes shifts in science and historic thought since the Enlightenment to explain and historicize the practice of history. It begins with the rise of what they term the "Heroic Model of Science," a belief that objective truth could be discovered and faith the progress of the modern world. The authors show how this model of science was adopted by both 19th century thinkers which in turn shaped how national histories, especially that of the United States was told. Histories were told in ways that glorified certain national heroes as heroes advancing the progress of the modern world, often times at the expense or deliberate exclusion of the non-WASPs. Gradually, through post-modernism, social history, the end of the Cold War and the falling image of science, critiques of the heroic model of science and histories examining other groups emerged. In the authors' eyes, these critiques, while valuable, sometimes was too nihilistic, arguing there is a fundamental disjunct between the subjective and objective, questioning any attempt to bridge it.
Rather than accepting this nihilism about the nature of knowledge, the authors stress that there is no fundamental gap between the subject and object, but rather a contingent one, a gap the historian must address. The last third of the book is spent arguing for their vision of history, "practical realism" that seems to take the belief in progress and facts along with some skepticism about these facts.
I found the idea that historians needed to explain what they did to a popular audience interesting. Certainly, this has something to do with the fact that the public has a huge misconception of academic history, problematized further by popular histories that often bear little relation to academic works of history. This divide was something I wish they brought up more, or even addressed, as at least to my mind, it is central to the book. If they were attempting to provide a somewhat unifying and defining idea of history for the 21st century, it would make sense to address the fact that two groups of people working in two kinds of professional environments write books called "history." The lack of addressing the professionalization of history and the divide between academic and popular history, both historically and in the present day, is my largest complaint.
Overall, good intro to historiography, certainly not rigorous, not captivating either though.
Rather than accepting this nihilism about the nature of knowledge, the authors stress that there is no fundamental gap between the subject and object, but rather a contingent one, a gap the historian must address. The last third of the book is spent arguing for their vision of history, "practical realism" that seems to take the belief in progress and facts along with some skepticism about these facts.
I found the idea that historians needed to explain what they did to a popular audience interesting. Certainly, this has something to do with the fact that the public has a huge misconception of academic history, problematized further by popular histories that often bear little relation to academic works of history. This divide was something I wish they brought up more, or even addressed, as at least to my mind, it is central to the book. If they were attempting to provide a somewhat unifying and defining idea of history for the 21st century, it would make sense to address the fact that two groups of people working in two kinds of professional environments write books called "history." The lack of addressing the professionalization of history and the divide between academic and popular history, both historically and in the present day, is my largest complaint.
Overall, good intro to historiography, certainly not rigorous, not captivating either though.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 2, 2015
This is a *popular* historiography of history (i.e., don't expect many footnotes or sources). It reviews the history of historical consciousness since the Enlightenment--its initial emergence as a mimicry of Christian-medieval truth-seeking (as applied to the secular: i.e., power of God is transferred to Nature), the subsequent period of "heroic science" (the rational, "objective", scientific model of history), to the reformers and the birth of social history and the postmodern turn in the 20th century.
Appleby, Hunt and Jacob, outside of giving us an overview of historiography, also attempt here to show how a pragmatic middle ground between a "scientific objectivity" and completely fragmented postmodernism might look as method of doing history. Their thesis: neither extreme works, but both points of views bring valuable contributions to the study of history--and they can and should be used to complement each other. We cannot lose sight of "objectivity" (they don't mean Enlightenment objectivity, they mean the idea that *something* real exists out there, regardless of our interpretations or our problematicizing of our interpretations)--for if we did, we'd lose the "object" of history. But we have to always remember we are essentially subjective (even though our aims in doing history might be).
Appleby, Hunt and Jacob explain they have written this book because it's about time historians explain (to the rest of world) what they do.. As democracy's foundation is the educational enterprise, and as history is integrative of national memory and character, I was struck by this sentiment and theme as a thread through the work.
As an overview of themes for those interested in the historiography of history, this is definitely the book you want to read. For those with some background in historiography, this work is probably not rigorous enough (no sources, only a few pages per major thinker, i.e., if your life is Foucault or Derrida or any of the other people they discuss, you will probably find their discussion on your particular specialty to be lacking).
Appleby, Hunt and Jacob, outside of giving us an overview of historiography, also attempt here to show how a pragmatic middle ground between a "scientific objectivity" and completely fragmented postmodernism might look as method of doing history. Their thesis: neither extreme works, but both points of views bring valuable contributions to the study of history--and they can and should be used to complement each other. We cannot lose sight of "objectivity" (they don't mean Enlightenment objectivity, they mean the idea that *something* real exists out there, regardless of our interpretations or our problematicizing of our interpretations)--for if we did, we'd lose the "object" of history. But we have to always remember we are essentially subjective (even though our aims in doing history might be).
Appleby, Hunt and Jacob explain they have written this book because it's about time historians explain (to the rest of world) what they do.. As democracy's foundation is the educational enterprise, and as history is integrative of national memory and character, I was struck by this sentiment and theme as a thread through the work.
As an overview of themes for those interested in the historiography of history, this is definitely the book you want to read. For those with some background in historiography, this work is probably not rigorous enough (no sources, only a few pages per major thinker, i.e., if your life is Foucault or Derrida or any of the other people they discuss, you will probably find their discussion on your particular specialty to be lacking).
August 26, 2012
This is a book intended for a general audience as well as those entering the historical profession, as such there are not many footnotes to add to its validity and the perspective of Koch and those who subscribe to his historiographical beliefs seems slightly weak.
Despite what I consider to be a lack of fullness of research and portrayal of the historians whose views are opposed to their own, the authors do a decent job tracing the history of historiography and is certainly helpful in understanding the purpose of the study of history, and helps to give validity to the entire study of history itself.
The lower (probably unfair) rating comes from my own personal bias in that I don't consider this an especially gripping read, at times I lost interest and thus lost focus.
Despite what I consider to be a lack of fullness of research and portrayal of the historians whose views are opposed to their own, the authors do a decent job tracing the history of historiography and is certainly helpful in understanding the purpose of the study of history, and helps to give validity to the entire study of history itself.
The lower (probably unfair) rating comes from my own personal bias in that I don't consider this an especially gripping read, at times I lost interest and thus lost focus.
November 2, 2015
As a book that is written for a general audience I think this misses the mark. It could have been summed up in a single chapter or even a paragraph.
History is written by an individual to suit their thoughts, culture, needs etc and will be of its time and for its time. To be objective is a high ideal that is unrealistic because of this innate premise of being written by an individual.
Personally I read it all the way through and at the end probably wished I had never spent the money or the time when there is so much more out there.
History is written by an individual to suit their thoughts, culture, needs etc and will be of its time and for its time. To be objective is a high ideal that is unrealistic because of this innate premise of being written by an individual.
Personally I read it all the way through and at the end probably wished I had never spent the money or the time when there is so much more out there.
April 5, 2009
This book is very much a response to the modern incarnation of the historical discipline and its overwhelming doubt concerning the value of truth, knowledge, and historical narrative. As the authors state, it addresses the current controversies about objective knowledge, cultural diversity, and the political imperatives of a democratic education... by focusing on the project of history, specifically by asking what people can know about the past that will help them elucidate the present.
November 28, 2008
I have read a bit by Lynn Hunt before, and part way through this book I realize I am struck again by how brave these authors are. So much ink has been emptied trying to explain truth in a number of contexts. This book tackles this subject in a clear way. Lastly, I find myself laughing out loud while I read this book, which is sort of strange because what's so funny about historicism anyway?
October 1, 2010
For those of you who want to read about the struggles of being an historian...and kind of the changes historians have gone through over the centuries...this is the book for you. Many of the people in my class found this challenging...but I thought it was a great introduction into the profession that I wish to join! Granted...I still plan to be a Librarian...but this is my OTHER job goal...
January 11, 2015
A nice introduction to the complexities of historical thought. This was required reading for an introductory course for a graduate program in historical studies. The book was not presented as the bible on understanding and applying historical thought, but rather as a jumping off point for the discussion of the responsibilities of a professional historian.
January 20, 2014
Not the most exciting book ever, but the prose is very clear, and the authors give a good overview of the various stages of evolution in historical research. They're writing just as postmodernism caught on among academic historians, so the content is a bit dated now, but there are still plenty of useful factoids in here.
March 25, 2008
A worthy effort but an unnecessarily lofty title. Unlike the title suggests, this book is not the singular end all be all on history, historical memory, etc. A good read for anyone seriously interested in historiography; all others, find another read.
March 31, 2015
This was a pretty good book. I just felt that it dragged in the middle... Almost was like it got bogged down with its own story. So it could have been better. Some great "one liners." My favourite was "All Histories are provisional, no one has the last word."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews