posted 06-17-2011 09:44 AM               

There have been many contributions by 'amateur' historians (Barbara Tuchman is a prominent example) despite the fact that they do not have the academic credentials in history, but nonetheless are self-taught. I would argue that anyone who studies history is a 'historian.'

Personally I read widely in the fields that I'm interested in and also some of the standard texts on historiography and the historical method as I'd like to do some writing on the subject. You can give yourself a pretty good education on primary sources and how to use and evaluate them without setting foot in a classroom.

Also, there are number of published authors on this forum who write about space history (and who are therefore 'space historians'), but whose academic background is not necessarily history per se, but I'll let them weigh in if they will.

That said, if you want to be a 'professional' historian (i.e. teach) you need the academic cred. Personally I haven't seen many history courses that focus on space, but others may have additional info. I would imagine that once you get to the Master's or PhD level you would choose that as your area of focus for your thesis or dissertation.

posted 06-17-2011 10:44 AM               

A historian is an individual who studies and writes about history, and is regarded as an authority on it.

A degree in history may not be about the history itself but more about how to communicate it, research it, and make deductions about historical findings. Most historians, archeologists, etc. specialize in a particular field.

Every once in a while you will see someone titled "Space Historian" on one of the science channels. Some of them have degrees in other fields which could also give them the necessary skills to communicate, research, etc.

I have a degree in engineering and consider "Space History" as my hobby. I am not practiced enough to call myself "Historian" but other collectSPACE members with various degrees and backgrounds have the knowledge and practice to certainly fit that category.

posted 06-17-2011 11:08 AM               

I've been on both sides of this fence, so I'll throw in my two cents. Generally speaking:

As in other fields, a "professional" historian is one who writes/researches/studies history as his primary occupation. You may be employed by a university to teach, the government to research and write, or you may be an independent scholar who relies on writing and publishing articles and books for a living. You don't have to have a history degree to be a professional in this sense, but it sure does help to get the acknowledgement of your peers (and for the legitimacy of your work).

You're an amateur historian if you do these things without getting paid, or as just a supplement to your regular income.

Of course, there's a lot of gray area. for example, a person with a PhD in history who is employed outside the field would still be considered a historian (and an all-too-common one these days!).

posted 06-17-2011 11:08 AM               

Space history is happening around us. We're lucky in realizing how important it is and moreover in having access to the people who make it. I find that there's always some detail that got overlooked or taken for granted, some new angle to investigate, or someone who still hasn't gotten their chance to be heard. Thankfully the interest is higher than ever, so there's an audience not only for the stories of astronauts and scientists who achieved fame, but also for the contributors who gave greatly, such as Alan Glines, who just published a memoir of his years in MOCR, and Sara Howard, who was one of the few women who worked on the Saturn V. Those recollections are the tip of a huge iceberg--hundreds of thousands of people helped make history during these decades, and most of their accounts are in danger of being neglected.

Among us are accomplished historians like Andy Chaikin, Francis French, Colin Burgess and Jay Gallantine, and their irreplaceable work will be standard reading for future generations. NASA also worked mightily to record anything it could. However, the sheer magnitude and complexity of the first five decades of the space program means that the best efforts can capture just a small part of what happened in Washington, in Downey, in New Orleans or in Bethpage, let alone what occurred in Houston, KSC or on the moon. Interwoven with those threads are tales of the Cold War, politics and economics, science and business, even individual people and families. You might live down the street from someone who created astronaut meals, or someone who worked on heat shields. Imagine what they'd have to share about it.

The point is, we could use a hundred more Andy Chaikins and Francis Frenchs, because there are a million memories still waiting to be captured. My slim contributions so far have come from finding the people who hadn't recorded their stories and asking the questions that hadn't been asked--Ewen Whitaker's recollection of how he located Surveyor III on the lunar surface so Apollo 12 could use it as a target, and Ferenc Pavlics' personal story about escaping from Communist Hungary and 15 years later watching his Lunar Rover traverse the moon.

One of my best memories of our astronaut autograph gatherings was a story Guenther Wendt tole me. In Burbank, 2004 (thanks to Stave and Nolan, again), a man came in and walked by all the marquee names just to shake Guenther's hand. Seems this fellow's father had been a janitor at the Cape during the M-G-A days, and that Guenther had arranged a VIP tour of the launch pad for him and his crew. Guenther said, "Of course it was usually senators and generals who got those tours and I never game a damn about them, but I wanted those janitors to know that they were part of the team like the rest of us." The janitor's son came to Burbank just to say thank you for that. Guenther was as moved by that forty years after as I am sharing what he told me.

posted 06-17-2011 12:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kr4mula:
Are you sure the original question isn't tongue-in-cheek?

---

posted 06-17-2011 12:32 PM               

My plan of being a NASA flight controller got side tracked by serious eye issues so I'm a banker today.

I still collect, read and learn about space science and history.

When my sons were in very early elementary school, I started going into their school to give presentations/lessons on some aspect of the space program. At this point my sons — men — are in their 30's but I continue to teach. I go into individual schools, libraries, civic groups, etc, throughout New York and New Jersey teaching classes about space history, science and technology.

I'm on the staff of two Saturday school programs where I teach multiple week courses twice a year. I'm on the Board at the NJ Aviation Hall Of Fame and I'm there space consultant, giving regular programs/classes.

I have written and had published two books about the space program. "Vision For Space" - a history of the program, as well as the story of my eyes and how my collection was created and "The A B C's Of Space Exploration" - a tutorial in space science, history and technology for children 4th grade and higher.

I am absolutely a qualified space historian in my humble opinion.

I have no professional training. As a matter of fact, when the Gifted Child Society produces it's brochure for the Saturday sessions, I am the only teacher with no letters after my name. Yet, the space classes are the most popular and most attended.

I have become aware of an on-line school that offers a degree program in space science. It's called American Public University. I've checked it out and still toy with the idea of taking the classes. Considering my age and the cost involved, I doubt it's worth doing for me. It would only satisfy my ego in having letters after my name in the brochure. I doubt it would open any new doors for me at this point in my life. They do have a program that offers life credits and I was assured I would be awarded the maximum amount after writing ten portfolios of information but that still leaves an awful lot of school to go through. Just in case anyone is interested, here's the website.

posted 06-17-2011 08:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
But they are still only a personal view of what actually happened.

---

When I started my research for "A Man on the Moon" in 1985 I had my share of preconceptions about what the astronauts thought and felt about their experiences. But I had to abandon many of those preconceptions as I found out what they *really* thought and felt (or at least what they were willing to share with me).

A good historian must always be prepared to change his or her mind in the face of new evidence. And, ideally, an experienced historian can add clarity and perspective that the events alone do not necessarily convey.

Having said all of that, my degree is in geology, not history -- so I have no doubt that anyone with sufficient insight, research skills, persistence, and communication ability can produce a meaningful historical work.

posted 06-17-2011 10:55 PM               

But from what I can deduce from the discussion and from what others have stated, including Mr. Chaikin, is that to be a good space historian (or a historian for any subject) you have to unbiased and open to being wrong about what you may or may not have thought happened at any given time.

My degree is in Aerospace Engineering and have read dozens of books on spaceflight, did several of my undergraduate presentations about spaceflight and the engineering behind it, and have watched countless hours of TV shows and spoken to some astronauts about their experiences and thoughts.

Oddly enough, no one has really talked about the Russian/Soviet side of spaceflight. I guess to be a "complete" space historian, you would also need to know a rather large amount of knowledge about their space program. To be honest, I think it would be rather difficult to be a Russian Space Historian due to all the secrecy and controversy their program had during the 60s and early 70s.

posted 06-18-2011 01:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
But they are still only a personal view of what actually happened.

---

Rigorous historiography requires far more than "only a personal view." The goal is to avoid the merely personal and to record the facts as determined by research from the best sources, preferably the primary ones, corroborated and documented explicitly. The personal views in autobiographies or work of that nature are separate from authentic history, and certainly anything that is "only a personal view" but which purports to be history is subject to serious criticism and rejection because it's likely to be useless.

Being a 'professional' doesn't make one either right or correct; however, acting like a professional means making the utmost effort to contribute work that is factual and unimpeachable.

posted 06-18-2011 01:56 AM               

As a case in point - how many historians have written books on the moon landing? Are they all the same? Similar - yes. The same - no.

posted 06-18-2011 07:28 PM               

I have enjoyed many, many pieces of space history written by those who are not academically-trained historians.

I have put together a couple of presentations for community groups based on what I have learned from reading works by people like Andy Chaikin and those who have been co-writers on astronaut biographies. My own professional interest is in women's history and religious history and my presentations have involved looking at the place of religion in American culture through the lens of the space program in the Cold War era. But I am not really an American historian. I doubt my colleagues would let me teach a course on the Space Race in the university although I might become qualified to do so in a few years.

In order to publish on the topic as a professional academic historian, I'd have to do a lot of primary source research. I'd have to learn Russian. I'd have to have a strong sense of context and be up on secondary literature about the cold war, U.S. history from the 40s through the 70s, etc.

So while I am both a professional historian and a space enthusiast, I have a long way to go befoore I'd feel comfortable calling myself a space historian.

posted 06-19-2011 12:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
Oh dear! I do seem to have bruised a few egos.

---

The extreme of the latter is plastered all over the Web -- work by "historians" who insist on legitimacy in their arguments that the moon landings were faked, for one obvious example. It serves no one to call this nonsense "history" and it's a waste of time to suggest that it merits the same respect that a responsible approach to the facts.

Your case in point isn't a case in point -- "how many historians have written books on the moon landing? Are they all the same? Similar - yes. The same - no" is simply reducing the argument to absurdity.

posted 06-19-2011 03:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Clow:
Your case in point isn't a case in point -- "how many historians have written books on the moon landing? Are they all the same? Similar - yes. The same - no" is simply reducing the argument to absurdity.

---

I repeat - for a given set of facts there can be many valid views depending on where the historian studying them places his emphasis. That is a personal choice. Some may agree with this viewpoint. Others may disagree. In many ways this is what makes history such a fascinating subject.

posted 06-19-2011 04:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
I'm happy with mine. I'll leave you to sort out yours.

---

It would also lead to extensive mediocrity in historiography, and ultimately to pointlessness in the endeavor. If the sole possible outcome of "most histories" is "simply a personal interpretation of the sequence of facts which lead to an event," then history isn't a serious pursuit. It's just a hall of mirrors wherein all points are valid, all conclusions equal, and all of the products uniformly worthless.

Who's to say which "personal interpretation" is best? Who is to say what the "sequence of facts" is? Why isn't the book by someone insisting that the moon landings were fake conspiracies just as worthwhile and valuable as Chaikin's book, if what you say is correct?

Obviously "for a given set of facts there can be many valid views depending on where the historian studying them places his emphasis." There are space histories that emphasize the politics, the engineering, the financing, the geology... there are also space histories explaining that Tranquility Base was in a movie studio.

Do you have the right to interpret fact? Of course. Do you have the right to in invent your own facts to suit your interpretation? Not among adults. I presume that your "simple fact" was "Most histories are simply a personal interpretation of the sequence of facts which lead to an event." That isn't simple, it's simplistic. And it's not a fact regardless of your declaration that it is one.

It appears that you don't distinguish at all, between your own prejudices and facts. You're endorsing the practice of prejudicial treatment by suggesting that it is inevitable, as your "respected lecturer" said, and in effect saying that factual conclusions are impossible because only people can attempt to make them, and people have nothing but their own points of view to use.

Fortunately, anyone who aspires to earn respect as a "space historian" wouldn't agree with you. Adding to the body of knowledge requires work, respect for the audience, and a regard for the worth of the material. The "historian" who starts the process with no goal higher than rearranging his own prejudices is unlikely to be taken seriously.

posted 06-20-2011 01:25 AM               

Nowhere have I suggested that facts should be made up. Everything has to be properly researched and validated. Might I suggest that you read the thread about BP-1227 to confirm that this is what I believe a historian should do.

The importance placed on a work by an author on a historical subject is down to his peers and how the general public view it. Some books about the Moon landings I like, some I think are lacking. That comes down to the personal input from the writer - the style, how he/she presents the facts and the emphasis placed on those facts to draw a conclusion.

posted 06-20-2011 12:13 PM               

Did you say "facts should be made up"? No. Did I say you said that? No.

Did you say that "for a given set of facts there can be many valid views depending on where the historian studying them places his emphasis. That is a personal choice"? Indeed you did.

Did you say that "most histories are simply a personal interpretation of the sequence of facts which lead to an event"? Again, indeed you did; twice, in fact. In your view histories are histories are "still only a personal view of what actually happened." Would I call that simplistic and misleading? Indeed I would. Does that suggest to me that you think historiography is insubstantial and unreliable because it's "still only a personal view of what actually happened"? It does.

If the study of history invites this kind of subjectivity in its creation and thereafter in its interpretation, it's no wonder that so many cranks and wingnuts get their fifteen minutes of fame. Perhaps your training is lacking too -- I can't imagine a middle school history class, let alone a university history program, that sets the bar so low as to say that "most histories are simply a personal interpretation of the sequence of facts which lead to an event" and that the product of the student's work ought to be "only a personal view of what actually happened." Basic respect for the process and for the very idea of factuality in the first place would require more from the students than "only a personal view"; hence the difference between, say, the astronaut autobiographies and Chaikin's "A Man on the Moon." The former are memoirs -- "personal views." The latter achieves more than that. If "only a personal view of what actually happened" is possible -- as you say -- than there's no point in writing or reading the latter.

You say that the relative merit of these works in your thinking "comes down to the personal input from the writer - the style, how he/she presents the facts and the emphasis placed on those facts to draw a conclusion." If "only a personal view of what actually happened" is possible, then how does any writer determine factuality? If the record is all just personal views, then any would-be historian, even with the best intentions, is relying on a record made unreliable by a preponderance of personal views, and arriving at facts to draw a conclusion is practically impossible. We see this all the time, sadly. Even the best histories are flawed. The dubious histories can take any set of facts, factoids, rumors and bunk, and, using your low standards, arrive quite intentionally at a conclusion that seems logical and is a outright lie. Bart Sibrel can justify his falsifications and delusions by calling them "only a personal view of what actually happened." Any historian with integrity aspires to do better.

Am I "accusing you of "things I never said or meant"? Not at all. It looks as though you're the one who's making the revisions, not I. Maybe your command of English is lacking when you're compelled to reinterpret yourself every day just to spin away from your previous day's remarks.

posted 06-20-2011 12:45 PM               

One of them I heard at Spacefest, concerning the allegedly "eyewitness" testimony of a respected astronaut about events in the MOCR during the Apollo 13 emergency. This astronaut offered his personal on-site recollections of the moment; however, another witness says that the astronaut wasn't present in the room at the time. The contradictory version does come from a person who was certainly present there.

No one suggests that the astronaut is falsifying the record deliberately, but this is an object lesson in the fragility of memory, and moreover, on the danger of "personal views" being mistaken for facts. One such error in the record sets off a chain of further ones.

One of our readers here can give more detail on this, if he chooses.

I am at liberty to say more about a second example. It was General Motors that created the Lunar Rover, and a GM engineer named Ferenc Pavlics who designed the piano-wire tires that worked so well for Apollos 15, 16, and 17. Now, sadly, Goodyear is publicizing a story that they are the makers of the wire wheels. This appears to be a simple error on their part, but correcting it is nearly impossible because they can reach a huge audience with the mistake, and as the error is repeated, it gains credence. We may well find that would-be historians cite it as fact. The utility of their work would be compromised without them even knowing it.

posted 06-21-2011 06:15 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Clow:
Am I "accusing you of "things I never said or meant"? Not at all. It looks as though you're the one who's making the revisions, not I. Maybe your command of English is lacking when you're compelled to reinterpret yourself every day just to spin away from your previous day's remarks.

---

Depending on what respected historian one reads, the demise of Scott's polar party in 1912 is put down to either poor planning, or unusually severe weather conditions, or misuse of transport. The first of these covers many aspects of the 1910 - 1913 expedition.

One can find books about Scott which emphasise each depending upon the authors' interpretation of the facts. For example, Ranulph Fiennes portrays Scott as a competent leader whilst Roland Huntford takes the opposite view. Both use the same historical record without any 'made up facts'. Both are valid histories and which is the correct one is left to the reader's own judgement as to who presents the most compelling case.

This, despite your failure to appreciate the fact, is what I mean by personal interpretation and emphasis.

Without wishing to be accused of being revisionist again, let me repeat that at the end of this you and I are not all that far apart on what makes a 'historian'.

posted 06-21-2011 12:52 PM               

You seem remarkably self-assured about deciding what is and isn’t a “fact,” and I still wonder if you know the difference between something you would like to be true and a proven fact. I don’t agree that it is a “fact” that you “take a much broader picture of history and historians” than I do, because I doubt that many writers who would fall under your over-broad definition of "historians" are historians at all, any more than I think graffiti is "art." In other words, I don’t think your picture is “broader.” I think your picture is wrong.

I’d suggest as well that if you’re required to say over and over what you mean, perhaps you did it poorly in the first place, and in the second also. I’d suggest as well that gloating about “bruising egos” here or anywhere else is laughably adolescent.

posted 06-21-2011 01:25 PM               

Moorouge is right in that you two aren't that far apart. In fact, your arguments are much like historians would argue over a given set of facts. In many cases, it is not the facts themselves that are in question, but rather the *meaning* or interpretation of those facts. For the class of professional or academic historians, it is the search for meaning among the facts that separates them from amateur historians, antiquarians, and the like. Just digging up new facts about an event isn't enough to satisfy the requirements for that sort of history. Your have to derive some meaning from those facts so that we learn something from a broader perspective. As Roger Launius, an indisputable space historian, always put it to me when discussing my own research: "So what?"

So it seems that the argument developing here is how you interpret "interpretation." Historians use that term to describe how we put meaning onto a set of facts, not how we make up facts. The whole point of historical scholarship is to document your sources so others can verify your facts, agree or disagree with your interpretation, and publish alternative findings if necessary. If you're found to make up facts, then you and your work is discredited. The fake moon landing is a good example. No historian would say that people who believe we faked the moon landing are doing good historian because that "interpretation" runs counter to the established evidence. What would be a legitimate area for argument might be: was the moon landing a watershed moment for the country, or an aberration? NASA's recent conference on the meaning of Sputnik is another great example.

posted 06-21-2011 02:13 PM               

I concur with the position that if your write history that can stand up to the scrutiny of your peers, then you're a historian, regardless of your training, experience, education, or employer. I think that definition would exclude many self-proclaimed "historians" who research a topic from the past and then write down their own interpretation of the results of that research.

It's worth reminding ourselves that we live in an age of unprecedented capacity to self-publish. The very idea of peer-review is more crucial now than ever just because it is so painfully easy today for people to avoid it. Publishing books, websites, and films are now within reach of anyone at all who feels they have researched a topic from the past and then written down their own interpretation of the results of that research. Moorouge, presumably, would call such a person an "historian" since they are surely one of the ANY he mentions. I would not.

No peer-scrutiny at all is required for the pseudo-history on numerous moon hoax websites but the authors of that fraud insist that having researched the topic from the past and then written down their own interpretation of the results of that research, that they are entitled to a hearing like the one we give Andy, Colin, Francis and the other respected historians here while they explain that "This article was written to prove, once and for all, that we are not being told the truth about the NASA film footage of the Apollo missions. This will astound even the most hardened skeptic and convince many people that the whole Apollo moon project of the late 1960's and early 70's were a complete hoax."

posted 06-21-2011 04:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kr4mula:
There is actually no way of "knowing" precisely what happened (and why) at any given historical point because all of the "facts" cannot be known (even by those who were there).

---

I realize the subject is "history and historians", not science and scientists or engineering and engineers, for that matter. However, this is a space site and something has to be said about the value of academic rigour, or professionalism. After all, without that you don't get into space.

quote:

---

Just digging up new facts about an event isn't enough to satisfy the requirements for that sort of history. You have to derive some meaning...

---

posted 06-22-2011 12:15 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alcyone:
We live in very interesting times.

---

Beware. There is an old Chinese curse that says "May you live in interesting times".

posted 07-01-2011 06:53 AM               

You probably gain more credibility if you have been published, but I don't think that would preclude you. I think a measure is the breadth and depth into the subject which you can be counted as a reliable source.

posted 07-14-2011 02:52 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by benguttery:
One of the best parts of space history is there is not a lot of it --

---

This said, I recently came across this quote from Cicero which might well be pertinent to the discussion on this thread and the relationship between student and our 'space historian'.

"In discussion it is not so much weight of authority as force of argument that should be demanded. Indeed, the authority of those who profess to teach is often a hindrance to those who desire to learn; they cease to employ their own judgement and take what they perceive to be the verdict of their chosen master as settling the question... So potent was an opinion already decided, making authority prevail unsupported by reason."