History is an argument
Many people think history is simply "what happened." But historians know that history is an interpretation: an evidence-based explanation of the past. Historians select evidence, ask questions and build arguments. Different historians can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions.
Historiography is the study of how history has been written: who wrote it, when, why, and how interpretations have changed over time.
Why interpretations differ
| Factor | Example |
|---|---|
| Sources available | newly opened archives, such as Soviet records after 1991, can change our understanding |
| Questions asked | a historian focused on politics may ask different questions than one focused on daily life |
| Historian’s context | historians are shaped by their own time, culture and beliefs |
| Methods | statistics, oral history, archaeology, DNA or digital tools reveal new evidence |
| Whose voices count | for a long time, history was mostly written about and by powerful men |
Schools of historical thought
| Approach | Focus | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Political / "great men" | leaders, wars, governments | biographies of prime ministers |
| Marxist | economic class and conflict | labour history, the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 |
| Annales school | long-term structures: geography, climate, everyday life | how environment shaped societies over centuries |
| Social history ("history from below") | ordinary people’s lives | immigrants, workers, families |
| Women’s and gender history | women’s experiences, gender roles | the suffrage movement, the Persons Case |
| Postcolonial | effects of colonialism, perspectives of the colonized | empire viewed from India or Africa |
| Indigenous history | Indigenous perspectives, oral histories, relationships with land | treaty history told by First Nations Elders |
Revisionism
Revisionism means re-examining accepted interpretations. It is a normal and healthy part of history: new evidence and new questions lead to better understanding.
Example: John A. Macdonald. For much of the 20th century, Macdonald was celebrated as the founder of Canada and builder of the railway. More recent work has emphasized his government’s role in starving Plains First Nations, the Chinese head tax and the residential school system. Today, many historians argue for an interpretation that includes both his nation-building achievements and these harms. Communities have debated statues and school names as a result.
Revisionism should be distinguished from denialism, which rejects well-established evidence, such as Holocaust denial. Good revision follows evidence; denial ignores it.
Historical thinking concepts
Canadian historian Peter Seixas identified six historical thinking concepts:
- Historical significance: Why does this matter? Who did it affect? What does it reveal?
- Evidence: How do we know? What can sources tell us, and what are their limits?
- Continuity and change: What changed and what stayed the same?
- Cause and consequence: Why did it happen, and what resulted?
- Historical perspective: How did people at the time see things?
- Ethical dimension: How should we judge the past, and what do we owe because of it?
Perspective versus presentism
Historical perspective means understanding people in their own context: their beliefs, knowledge and circumstances. Presentism means judging the past only by today’s values without that understanding.
The goal is not to excuse past wrongs. Historians can recognize that past actions were harmful, and that some people opposed them at the time, while still explaining why they happened.
Case study: the significance of Vimy Ridge
- Traditional interpretation: Vimy (1917) was the "birth of a nation," when Canadians fought together and earned international respect.
- Critical interpretations: some historians argue this myth grew later, especially after the memorial opened in 1936; it overlooks French Canadian opposition to the war and the Conscription Crisis, and battles like the Hundred Days may have been more militarily important.
- Historiographical question: Why did Vimy become a national symbol, and whose experiences does that story include or leave out?
Evaluating interpretations
Ask:
- What evidence supports this interpretation? Is it reliable and sufficient?
- What perspective or approach does the historian take?
- What does the interpretation leave out?
- How does it compare with other interpretations?
- Is the argument logical and consistent with the evidence?
Try it yourself
- Compare two historians’ interpretations of the same event. What explains the differences?
- Analyze how a historical figure’s reputation has changed over time.
- Apply the six historical thinking concepts to an event you’ve studied.
- Write a short essay: "Is history more about the past or the present?"
Quick recap
- History is interpretation based on evidence, not just a list of facts.
- Historiography studies how history has been written and why interpretations change.
- Schools of thought, sources and historians’ contexts shape interpretations.
- Revisionism follows new evidence; denialism ignores it.
- Historical perspective, significance and ethical judgment are key tools.