“Nerds” of yesterday-”Heroes” of tomorrow?: Why being Historians?

Good morning everyone. After some rearrangements it is me the one in charge to update for this week, and unfortunately you will have to wait to see what amazing Scott has ready for you until the end of the month. Nonetheless, I hope I can entertain you at least for a bit with this very random but perhaps interesting post. I have been meaning to update with something like this for a while and finally here it is.

Some of you might know that one of the requirements for history students is to do an essay and evaluations of the importance of being a historian, studying history and all that jazz. Well, I did like many others my essay some time ago already.The ideas I argued in that paper were very similar to the following one. First of all the issue of employability; history students have a good chance to find a decent graduate job thanks to their knowledge and skills acquired during their degree, which is just as a good reason as anything else to make the degree valuable. Apart from that I also indicated that historians do have the knowledge from the past that can be used to change the present and the future. Many of the nowadays situations that our governments have to deal with and even some of the circumstances given in the majority of the societies and economies all around the world have their origins in the past. As historians we can try and learn from what happened before and take measures to make it work now. In addition, I always thought that just the learning of history should be pretty much compulsory in schools, high schools and colleges no matter what, because history also forms you as an individual. History allows you to develop your own views on different matters, it makes you do your own reading and research, very useful skills for anyone in general, and it makes you understand your place within the world. It allows you to identify yourself within a bigger context, to belong somewhere. History ties in very closely with family and community, two big parts of our everyday life. Many people, not to say everyone, wants to know who they are, where do they come from, who were there ancestors, were they interesting people? did they do something relevant? something important? Something to be proud of and aspire to achieve?

These and many other things make history so important. I could carry on rambling about this the whole day, but now I would like to proceed to put forward the reason why I have been thinking about this lately. There is a TV series, that som of you might know called Falling Skies. It started last year and the new season is about coming out very soon. The basic plot of the story is that in an alternative sci-fi future some aliens have come to some places of the earth, (well in this case america, but one can assume the situation is similar elsewhere), establish huge alien bases and fight mankind. In their struggle it seems that these aliens have also been stealing the young boys and girls on many of these people to enslave them and use them in their colonisation of the planet. Why is this relevant? Because of the main character of this story, called Tom Mason, who is a father of 3 and has lost one of his sons to the aliens, and whose rescue is one of the main subplots of the whole thing. So what is the deal with Tom and why I have the urge to share this with everyone that reads this? Well as it happens he IS AN HISTORIAN!

Have any of you ever seen a historian as the protagonist of any TV series? Everyone knows about the adventures of Professor Jones against the nazis and the russians to recover lost and mysterious artefacts, and the same applies to the National Treasure saga. But it did shocked me that it was a history teacher the one that basically has the control in this series. Apart from the whole deal with the aliens, the one bit that gets to me every single time I see this, is how Amazing Tom Mason keeps on making comments and references to historical events that could give them the answer to solve a specific problem they have to deal with. Mainly and most of the times is references about battles, outcomes, hostages and military history in general, but still It Is History applied to a counterfactual situation, and the man proves himself to be useful and most of the time quite right. He uses his understanding of mankind to attempt to understand these aliens, to defeat them and to change things. I think it is a very nice tribute to all of us that engage with history to know that we can also be the ‘heroes of the day’ even if it is in fiction, and perhaps in reality if this situation could ever occur.

So today goes for you all history lovers, and in particular, as my degree finishes soon (in deed the next time I would be updating this blog I would technically have finished I university), I would like to dedicate this post to some of my particular ‘heroes’ who happen to be historians in a way or another, like the already mentioned Tom Mason, my father without whom I would have never ended up doing history, and my university lecturers.

HISTORY CHEERS! I hope you enjoyed this relaxed update and that you will keep an eye on for the delightful stuff my team mates will be sharing with you in the following weeks.

What if Arthur had become King of England?

The Tudors are one of the most famous English royal families, into which historians have conducted countless amounts of research, with particular focus upon the wives of Henry VIII, as well as the reigns of both himself and his three children, among various significant events which took place during this momentous period of history. It is therefore, interesting to view certain aspects of this particular time from the perspective of counter-factual history, also known as alternative history. The life of Prince Arthur Tudor, for example, is one of the areas overshadowed by the more decisive and influential aspects of Tudor history. The approach of alternative history could be applied to multiple areas of Tudor history, but in this post I hope to explore the alternative of What if Arthur had become King of England?

Well, the first question one would perhaps wish to ask is; would he have been the great legend his parents had hoped for? Indeed, his place of birth being Winchester – the ‘spiritual home of King Arthur’s Round Table’[1] – implies Henry VII and Elizabeth of Yorke had high hopes for their first born son. Also, would he have been both as famous and infamous as Henry VIII? Considering the view that Henry VIII’s main reason for the Break from Rome was to divorce his first wife – being an incredibly controversial move amongst the English people, it can be argued that Arthur would have been rather different. As, one historian, Gunn argues, that due to his less confrontational nature, Arthur would perhaps not have been so destructive towards the Catholic church as his brother. What is more, any alterations to or replacement of the Catholic Church in England, would, as Gunn suggests, have derived from the grass-roots as a challenge to authority, rather than enforcement by the government or monarchy.

It has also been argued by Kathryn Hadley in her review of Steven Gunn and Linda Monkton’s book Arthur Tudor: Prince of Wales, for the History Today magazine that the English Reformation would have been played out rather differently had Arthur been King of England. This is because it is believed that Arthur was ‘less confrontational’ and therefore would most likely have been more careful like his father. Indeed, when trying to construct an image of Arthur Tudor as king of England, it is helpful to reflect on the attitudes of Henry VII as he would have had a lot of control over his son’s upbringing, such as through choosing his tutors. This point links back to the areas in which the two sons of Henry VII were most educated, in order to prepare them for their duties as English royalty.

Although historians do not have accurate evidence of the nature of the relationship between Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon, it has been suggested in Gregory’s historical novel that the two were very much in love and therefore, one can assume that little would have broken their marriage, had they had the opportunity to live as King and Queen of England. However, considering their ages at their time of marriage, any form of relationship can really only be speculation. Also, if we are to consider what we do know, in order to construct an alternative story to the actual succession of the Tudor monarchy, Arthur’s weak health would suggest that producing sons, who would live beyond the age of three, would have been a challenge.

On the other hand though, Referring back to Henry VIII’s first divorce, which, the evidence suggests, was primarily due to the lack of a male heir, it could be argued that things may have planned out differently, had Arthur remained Catherine’s husband. As, although it is hard to tell whether the lack of a male heir would have given him reason to find another wife, having been trained to become a king, unlike Henry, who was trained in the church, as the second son, Arthur may not have been as involved or concerned with the workings of the English church. What is more, the investigations into Henry VIII’s illnesses and their links to his inability to have more than four children – of which only one was a legitimate male heir – could lead to the conclusion that if Arthur had become king, England may have had a more stable line-up of sons. Although, returning to the matter of his health, had Arthur survived the illness which killed him as a young man, it would most likely have weakened him.

But if Arthur, as king, had had to face the same succession crisis as Henry VIII, would he have divorced Catherine and if he had, whom would he have married? This is a question which feels far beyond any reasonable speculations, but being the serious boy he was, it seems likely that had it crossed his mind, Arthur would have made some foreign alliance, through a second marriage, with another European power. But again, there is not enough material to speculate with much accuracy.

One last point I would like to consider in this post, is the amount the Tudor court would have travelled, had Arthur fulfilled his parents hopes’, in becoming the next legendary king of England. If he had demonstrated anything like the character of his father, the court would have remained fairly inanimate and stationary, which combined with his upbringing in the Welsh castle of Ludlow, may have produced a seemingly distant and at times, absent king. Although, again, there is little material for speculation in their area.

To conclude, let us consider what is the significance of counter-factual or alternative history and what can we learn from it? Thinking about the what ifs of a subject or event in history can help us to unravel why history happened the way it did and how these things have had an effect on subsequent events.

Bibliography;

http://www.historytoday.com/blog/news-blog/kathryn-hadley/what-if-arthur-prince-wales-had-been-king

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/ArthurTudor.htm

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/prince_arthur.htm

 

---

[1] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/prince_arthur.htm

 

What if Oscar Wilde said; No?!?

We have all done it, or I don’t know about you, but I have at least, I mean I’ve often though what if. This idea of experimenting with the what if’s can be very fascinating and also dangerous, fascinating because we can then explore other possible directions history could have taken, dangerous because some might have problems with seeing the difference between truth and fantasy. Or more correctly seeing the difference between the; what if, and the real what.

What if history is also known as Counterfactual history, by which we mean the idea of exploring the course of events that would have , or more correctly is believed to have, come to pass is a certain event would have turn out differently than it actually did. Probably one of the most fashionable or popular ‘what if’s’ is the idea of what if Germany had Won the second world war? Would we all have spoken German by now? And would that have meant that we already would have German economic ideas in place in the European budgets??? In other words could a German victory in the 1940’s have prevented this economic crises Europe is facing now??? Other what if’s that is popular: What if Robert E Lee had won the battle of Gettysburg? Or what if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?, among others. Maybe one of the earliest examples of this counterfactual history method is; Charles Petrie’s ‘If: A Jacobite Fantasy, first publishes on the 3rd of January 1926 in The Weekly Westminster.[1]One of the most famous books in counterfactual history is Philip K Dick’s The Man in the High Castle from 1962[2], the first of the two texts is concerned with what if the Stuart line had been re-established on the throne in 1745, the second is about what if the Axis powers had won World War Two, both are well worth to read, but that is not the main issue of this article.

For those of you who follow the notions of history months, will know that February in many countries is LGBT-history month, and in that instance I want to examine a WHAT IF that I was acquainted with the other day (2^nd of Feb. 2012) at a lecture held by Professor Eric Anderson, what if Oscar Wilde had not had his slip of words and admitted that he was gay, would we then consider flamboyant feminine men as the stereotypical Homosexual? I do not want to judge, but I can say honestly, and I think many with me, that many a Gay man have something slightly feminine with his being. I am not here saying that all homosexual men are feminine or flamboyant, or that all feminine and, or, flamboyant men are gay, please understand me correctly, what I am trying to say is; there are a certain group of men who are both gay, flamboyant and feminine in their way, and this idea of gays being flamboyant and feminine comes from Oscar Wilde.[3] Not from what he wrote, but from his own way of living and our ideas of him.[4] The ideas can be summed up in the words of the Marquess of Queensberry’s words in June 1894 ‘You look it and you pose as it, which is just as bad’[5].on the morning of the 4^th of April 1895 Oscar Wilde’s tongue slipped, and he stated in court: ‘Oh, no, never in my life; he was a peculiarly plain boy’,[6] when he was asked if he had ever kissed a specific servant referred to in the court documents.[7] Then the question is; what if Oscar Wilde had not had his slip of tongue? Would we then have more plays or poems by him? Would we have defined the cliché homosexual man as a masculine man? Or even an average diversity as we now are moving towards? Or would we never have had the acceptance and development with have been seen the last 20 years or so on the topic of LGBT rights?

As you have seen there are many ways to use counterfactual history, sometimes it’s used to enlighten us to real possibilities, other times they can be pure experiments of thoughts, but at least one thing is for certain and that is that the art of Counterfactual history once and for all have proven that history is not a linear chain of positive development is wrong, for we are now aware that so much could have been different if certain things, actions or even words would have been done, said or acted differently.

This is just one of many ways to use the What If ideas while reading or thinking of history, what is your favourite what if in history?

---

[1] http://www.jacobite.ca/essays/if.htm (accessed 17.50 on the 6^th of Feb. 2012)

[2] http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/highcastle.htm (accessed 17.52 on the 6th of Feb. 2012)

[3] A. Sinfield, vii

[4] Ibid, vii.

[5] M. Holland, xix, 2004

[6] Ibid, 207.

[7] Ibid, 207.

Bibliography

Anderson, E., Homohysteria, lecture on the 2nd of Feb 2012.

Holland, M., Irish Peacock & Scarlet Marquess; The Real Trail of Oscar Wilde, (London, 2004)

Sinfield, A., The Wilde Century; Efeeminacy, Oscar Wilde and the Queer Moment, (Chichester, 1994)

http://www.jacobite.ca/essays/if.htm

http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/highcastle.htm

History or Story II: The Plot Against America

The clue for a good book in alternate History is the point from which a new History emerges; the key to success is plausibility.
That, exactly, is what Phillip Roth achieves in “The plot against America”: Rossevelt is defeated before he even had the possibility of getting the USA in WWII. And not only is he defeated; his rival is a charismatic aviation hero, Charles Lindbergh, with a political platform broadly based on nationalism, traditional values and, that is the main point, isolationism. What happens, then?
The novel, being narrated from the point of view of a Jewish kid, describes accurately the confusion of a surprising victory and the split in a society very opinionated and with issues of its own unsolved since the Great Crash. The isolationism was, and somewhat still is a very strong political movement in the States. There is quite a lot of citizens who think that, for the USA, the entanglement with European affairs could only end in disgrace, especially when those affairs where of a warlike condition. Even our main character’s family has its inner fights about cooperation with the new administration, which brings out the matter of collaboration, so important during the world conflict and the post-war years.
But what gives the biggest shock to History, is the new political profile of the United States’ Government; not only it will not approve to intervene in the war, the relations with the Nazis improve, and some kind of cooperation is even suggested. Which brings out the Jewish affair. How are Jews to be treated under the new, Nazi-friendly administration? Well, not exactly in the best of ways.
Little by little, with everyday examples, Roth brings to life drastic changes for the Chosen People. Anti-Semitism surges and gains strength, life is becoming worse for Jews, there is even a Maoism-like re-education program for young Hebrews, and violence is just waiting a spark to burn fiercely. The growing tension is explained not only from the eyes of our young friend, but particularly from the description of a media war between pro-Government and Jewish journalists, which, obviously enough, ends up utterly bad with the assassination of the leading Hebrew journalist…
This is probably the most anticlimactic point in the novel. Suddenly after this hot moment, Lindbergh disappears in one of his propaganda flights across the Nation, and amazingly quickly everything turns back to what we can call somewhat ordinary day life. Strange enough; it seems like Roth himself was feeling sick of how near was his story of what as well could have been History, considering the strength of the isolationist movement in the USA during the first half of the XX century, thus he decided to put an abrupt end to all that madness and suffering…
In few words: if what you are looking for is a good story, with suspense, tension, drama and a deep involvement in ethical and political issues, this is a must read, without doubt. Moreover, I think that this must be a compulsory reading for any would be Historian interested in what happened not only in Europe, but in the world in general, in reference to the sad story of the Hebrew People, because is a very likely translation of the actions that Nazi Government take in turn in Germany. But, my dear reader, if what you want to know is how fear, hatred and ignorance, melted with economic crisis, can actually transform a free society in a turmoil first read the book; then have a walk in your own town, and look around. Phillip Roth will walk with you giving you hints of where to look and discover the seeds of evil.