What makes one a historian?

I call 'em 'doll'. Does that count?

 

great post

 

Alarm bells ring in my head the second i see someone class themselves as a historian, especially on social media. Ive had a 'historian' try and tell me that harvey mc cullagh was wayne mc culloughs dad. That same guy has actually wrote articles for 3rd rate websites as a 'historian'. In my experience the people who i would personally think of as historians and who know their onions, havent actually claimed that they are. There are quite a few on here, the Classic section, that know more than anyone else i know of. So for my money, they can legitimately (in my own personal opinion) be thought of as such, although many wouldnt claim so themselves

 

I don't like the idea of some sort of fixed definition of what is or is not a "historian". Like someone who has written books or is otherwise being paid for his work on a specific (historic) subject.

If you google "historian", lots of definitions come up... like, for example, someone who is "studying and interpreting the past. When people need detailed, nuanced information about the past, they go to historians to get the facts".

This is a list of 33 men, BoxRec labels "historians":
Category:Boxing Historians - BoxRec

For sure, many on this list have/had amazing knowledge... but there are certainly also some, I wouldn't go to, if I wanted to be educated on the past! On the other hand, there are several very informed posters here on Classic (professionals or not), whose opinions I would much rather rely on.

 

Yeah, the term is too broad and the scope is too large to narrow down to “historian” or “not historian.”

There are some people who are experts in some areas and not others. In fact, I’d venture to say this is most of us.

 

thanks brotha

 

I think if you have enough quality research and in a particular area, having gaps in knowledge doesn't disqualify you at all.

Maybe some reflection of my own biases though.

 

Echo every word, said as much on different post.

 

I would agree with this, in part because there is simply no way to not have gaps in your knowledge, no matter how learned one is. In fact, in any subject I've ever put extensive research and study into, I've found that the deeper I go, the more I realize just how impossible it is to have a truly comprehensive understanding. That is not to say that one can't become an expert with broad and deep knowledge on a specific subject, but that, in doing so, the limitations of the human capacity come into play. That takes nothing away from the impressive work that people can still accomplish in a historical study, and the greater understanding is always worth pursuing. But it'll never become a complete understanding.

 

Also...

If we're talking about historians, I think it's necessary to address the term "research". Again, if you google it, one of the first things that pops up is "The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions".

I think the key word here is "facts". When you research something, you should do so with an open mind. And not just look for what supports your own preconceived opinion/agenda, and neglect what does not... this would be poor and useless research, and may do more harm than good!