Backbencher

Lecture 10 was titled "Sinclair and Clark" but turned out to be more than a lecture on the two historians as it prompted us to think about our attitudes about history in general. The lecture and this class has caused me to do a lot of self-reflection about my preconceived and personal views about the subject. Self-reflection can drive a person crazy- especially if you are over 40!

I think Manning Clark is a complicated man. He is a nation-maker- his writings put together a history for Australia and earned him high acclaim. His growing years shaped him as a writer. He was diagnosed with epilepsy as a child. I think his own struggles with self-doubt and growing out of a bitterness helped him understand Australia. His book "A Short History of Australia," which reflects class consciousness could have grown out of the fact that he grew up in a household with parents with different backgrounds. Was he an egotist? I wouldn't know. I don't think the fact that his autobiography is two volumes proves that. Maybe the books were his attempts on self-awareness. Clark was a fan of Tocqueville and Dostoyevsky but we didn't really learn why he admired them.

Keith Sinclair was also labeled a nation-maker. His writings reflect that New Zealand's National identity stems from their quest for an independence from colonial ways but at the same time not excluding colonial origins in their history. His autobiography reflected his acknowledgement of human frailities as well as his own- "I spent more time thinking about sex than about history."

We were posed the question- "why do we do history?" in class and explored three reasons- history for identity, history for fun and history as heritage resources. Most reasons seem somewhat selfish when I think about it. Nevertheless history serves future generations but ultimately they are the ones who chose what is important and what they will pass on.