Backbencher

Lecture ten was again about Sinclair and Clark. This time we mainly talked about their backgrounds. We went over some of the controversies surrounding Clark. Was he a self-indulgent egoist? He wrote a six-volume account of Australia’s history. There must have been some sort of self-interest to write that! I think that he may have done it to capture the history of Australia, but I also think that it was self-indulgent. Was he a good historian? I guess I can’t truly answer that because I have not read all of his work. His Book A short History of Australia seemed to be a good account of Australia’s formation so I would say that he was good based on that. Was he a Communist? I guess he could have been because he received honors and medals from the Soviet Union, but I don’t think that that is enough proof. We also discussed why people do history. Some do it because they think it is fun, while others want to teach it. I guess it goes back to that discussion should history be a social science or a humanity? I think it depends on whom you talk to.
I think that historians are there to serve the population. They may be doing work for their own self-fulfillment, but essentially they are doing it for others to read and learn from. I don’t know if it is different for the United States compared to Australia or New Zealand. It seems like there are more people in the United States who want to write about its history.
Lecture ten was a good lecture and brought up many interesting questions to think about.