The huge, turgid work of history, sinking under the weight of its own 'politically correct' thesis and its foot- and source notes, is not the British way of writing history, and never has been.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think the tradition of well-written history hasn't been squashed out of the academic world as much in Britain as it has in the United States.
History should not be left to the historians. Rather, be like Churchill. Make history, and then write it.
We've all faced the charge that our novels are history lite, and to some extent, that's true. Yet for some, historical fiction is a way into reading history proper.
The writer may very well serve a movement of history as its mouthpiece, but he cannot of course create it.
You can't write about history without writing about politics at some point. History is about movements of people. 'What is criminality and what is government' is a theme that runs through every history.
English history is all about men liking their fathers, and American history is all about men hating their fathers and trying to burn down everything they ever did.
The notion of 'history from below' hit the history profession in England very hard around the time I came to Oxford in the early 1960s.
History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind.
History is the transformation of tumultuous conquerors into silent footnotes.
The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.
No opposing quotes found.