We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Millist ajalugu meil üldse tarvis on?
- Authors
Hiio, Toomas
- Abstract
The "target group" for the work of historians and enthusiasts of the creative work of historians do not always consider written history as the result of historical research based on scholarly methodology. Instead, they expect affirmation from history for what has become their habitual belief in one or another assertion. We saw this once again in the public discussion that flared up in Estonia in December of 2012 over the publication of Estonian History II, the volume on the Middle Ages in the multi-volume comprehensive Estonian History. A number of the disputants had not even read the book itself, yet they considered it necessary to attack or defend the book's authors on the grounds of long since fixed viewpoints of the disputants themselves, which the publication of the book did not change in any way at all. The problem with history is that even though it is taught in school as a part of education founded on an educated view of the world, it always also contains a certain component related to shaping identity. The curriculum that forms the basis for teaching history in Estonia defines the objectives of teaching history as being based on historical research in every respect. At the same time, there are several fictional works in the compulsory literature programme at Estonian schools - for instance works set in the Middle Ages - that were written at the end of the 19th century or during the first half of the 20th century, and as such represent more the objective of shaping historical identity. At the same time, moulded historical identity does not necessarily have to contradict the results and conclusions of historical research. The points of emphasis are simply different. What has happened in history and its interpretation boils down to its division into good and bad, and right and wrong. Additionally, we divide the agents who act in history into winners and losers, and villains and innocent sufferers. It is human to want to be on the side of the good, the just and the winners, yet in the case of the latter choice between alternatives, the preference is more to be among the innocent sufferers than among the villains. It is just as human to wish that "our own", in other words those whose identity we also believe to be concealed within ourselves, were always good and just and winners, or at least innocent sufferers. Here there are no great differences between medieval history and recent history. Among others, historian, journalist and writer Andrei Hvostov, writer Mihkel Mutt and naturally the editor-in-chief of the book itself Professor Anti Selart presented their viewpoints in the controversy over the II volume of Estonian History. While Andrei Hvostov declared himself an ideologist first and foremost even when writing history - meaning that he always chooses sides - Professor Selart, on the other hand, pointed to the fact that even though the creation of identity is not the task of the historian, the identity of every individual historian at least partially affects the history that he writes. As a non-historian, Mihkel Mutt expressed the hope that honest historical writing founded on scientific methods nevertheless exists.
- Subjects
ESTONIAN history; HISTORIOGRAPHY of the Middle Ages; HISTORY &; politics; HISTORY education; NATIONALISM &; collective memory; HVOSTOV, Andrei; MUTT, Mihkel, 1953-; SELART, Anti, 1973-
- Publication
Tuna, 2013, Issue 3, p2
- ISSN
1406-4030
- Publication type
Essay