Comments on: History Polyglot–How to Translate or Interpret in a Digital Age

By: Idetrorce

Idetrorce — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:04:06 +0000

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce

By: beginers credit

beginers credit — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:52:56 +0000

Hi guys, all the best to you! Please tell me how to behave in such state – I need a very good credit ‘cause there’s a job I want so. But they won’t accept me, I’m a student. I’m going to improve credit and apply for secured credit cards. So far I visited a web site but I cannot rely on it until you tell me if it’s worth applying there! Please recommend 0% transfer apr for life of transfer cards

By: Reading Manifestos

Reading Manifestos — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:55:59 +0000

[...] can read Bill’s Waiting on Abdulhamid II, Jenny’s History Polyglot: How to Translate or Interpret in a Digital World, Historiarum’s I’d Love to Take a Public Beating, Misha’s Thank you, Sepoy, and [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:57:37 +0000

Jenny, I think your skills as a digital historian are going to be valued highly. As the vanguard of a new generation of historians, you and I and the others in our class (whether we really want it or not) will be responsible for creating the very foundations of digital history.

Professor Petrik and a very few others (many mentioned by Ahmed) are teaching us the way, but ultimately it will be the younger historians (no offense intended, Professor P!) that will create the paradigms and the methodologies that will allow them/us to craft history in digital media. So our job is to take our skillz and create our own spaces and historical methods. To become that interpreter, not only for the public but also for other historians who are less digitally-savvy. I think you are going to do just fine in the Brave New World!

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:26:27 +0000

Jenny,

You asked: “Does my ability to use digital media make me a better historian? Or am I learning how to appeal to the popular masses? Do the two connect? ”

The answers: No. Maybe. Probably.

Seriously, I have never understood the concept of a historian that doesn’t appeal to the masses. Or at least doesn’t want his or her work shared with the largest number of people possible. The internet is simply a new forum for sharing that information. I’m sure some “historian” thousands of years ago was scared silly when suddenly people in the next village over were WRITING their stories down . . . The internet is a tool, and we are lucky enough – or unfortunate enough – to live in an age where it is a necessity. The real challenge, of course, is to separate the wheat from the chaff. The internet offers real anonymity and opportunity to engage in the study of any field without having to show, or necessarily possess, any credentials. But that’s a different issue entirely.

By: Lee Ann Ghajar

Lee Ann Ghajar — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:45:24 +0000

It’s interesting that you raise the issue of popular masses. That seems to be a discussion in the publication of history books as well. Who is writing for whom? Do more scholars need to “come out of the academy” and write books likely to appeal to more popular distribution? It’s an ongoing discussion that moves over to new media. It seems to me, though, that in an ideal world, history presented with simplicity, yet not dumbed down, can generate as much thought–or more–thought as that obfuscated with heavy theory and vocabulary. I love your home page.

By: Tad

Tad — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:18:44 +0000

Does plodding through somewhat technical and foreign reading on CSS help me do or interpret history better, or does it help me present history better?

I hope this doesn’t come off as too pithy, but what’s the difference? Can you separate those two things?

By: veprek.com » Blog Archive » Three Cheers for Digital History

veprek.com » Blog Archive » Three Cheers for Digital History — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:59:24 +0000

[...] Jenny Reeder’s blog, I raise the question of whether the notion of historian as interpreter claims too much. It does strike me as rather pretentious, but I know from my own research that this [...]

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:56:49 +0000

Jenny,
In my humble opinion, I would say that this technical learning you are doing primarily helps you to present history better. In doing so, however, you may indeed learn to interpret your subject matter in a new way —when one sees her subject matter in a new light, in this case presenting the information on a website intead of a book or lecture, she may add a new perspective that can enhace her own understanding of the material.

You raise Manan Ahmed’s discussion of “past-ese” and “present-ese.” Does anyone else have a negative visceral reaction to this concept? The idea that anyone is able to put himself in the mind-set of an American founding father or Chinese peasant on the eve of revolution and authentically speak with their voices seems pretentious. Certainly, with a grounding in historical texts and images, this is what we historians strive to do. Maybe it is that the term “interpreter” claims too much—too great an accuracy. Maybe there is a difference in getting into the mind-set of a time-period or a historical place and getting into the mind-set of an individual. Maybe I’m over-reacting? Any thoughts?

Laura