The difference between amateur and professional
Last week's (Jan. 20th) edition of The Economist featured a book review in the "Books and Arts" section revealing that last week (Jan. 16) in Beijing and London evidence was revealed bolstering the case that Zheng He, a 15th century Chinese explorer, explored and mapped the New World long before Columbus, between 1405 and 1435. This evidence is supposedly copies of a map orginally produced around 1418 (the copies were made in 1763). The magazine quotes Gunnar Thompson, saying "It will revolutionize our thinking about 15th-century world history."
Thompson's credentials are not in History (M.A. in Anthropology, Ph.D. in Counseling) and the above quote reveals just what being a professional historian really means. I may be splitting hairs (he is considered an expert in cartography, and Anthropolgy is a close relative of history, after all) but his inability to put these revelations in proper context reveal the difference between amateur historians (or history "buffs") and those of us who are professionally trained.
Besides studying causality, continuations and change throughout time by the study of written documents, the professional historian has the ability to put events in proper context, which is something that Thompson does not do, if the quote is taken to its logical conclusion. More on this later.
Gavin Menzies (described in the Economist article as an "amateur historian") published a book in 2003 entitled 1421: The Year China Discovered the World which became a bestseller but failed to impress professional historians. Menzies' book is the primary thrust of the argument that Zheng He beat Columbus to the New World, and has convinced many lay readers. Menzies is quoted in the Economist article as saying that if the map proves to be authentic then "the history of New World discovery will have to be rewritten." Though the Economist states that "the consequences of the discovery of this map could be considerable" it asks the question "How much does this matter?"
I agree with the author of the article when I state "It doesn't matter at all." It won't change our present views on world history one bit. Though it may say quite a bit about 15th century China, it doesn't matter who discovered the New World first. That is the difference between the amateur and the professional historian. Amateurs will quibble and place tremendous importance on who discovered the New World first, the professional will recognize that Columbus' voyage, whether the first or the tenth, was the one that mattered. Columbus' voyage opened the New World up for European exploration and exploitation. Columbus' voyage led to a revolution in world trade known as the Columbian Exchange, and altered the course of world history.
I am not trying to be snobbish here; I am not saying that a piece of paper (i.e., a degree) means that I (or any other historian for that matter) are the sole authority when it comes to history (though I may be trying to justify pursuing economically worthless professional skills). Rather I am pointing out the difference between amateurish and professional pursuits. Writing academic, peer reviewed work is a far cry from dressing up for Renaissance Faire every spring (no offense to you Ren Faire folk). Though I don't want to put too much real-world importance to the debates that occur within the ivory tower, I still think that is important to know what the real arguments should be about.
Thompson's credentials are not in History (M.A. in Anthropology, Ph.D. in Counseling) and the above quote reveals just what being a professional historian really means. I may be splitting hairs (he is considered an expert in cartography, and Anthropolgy is a close relative of history, after all) but his inability to put these revelations in proper context reveal the difference between amateur historians (or history "buffs") and those of us who are professionally trained.
Besides studying causality, continuations and change throughout time by the study of written documents, the professional historian has the ability to put events in proper context, which is something that Thompson does not do, if the quote is taken to its logical conclusion. More on this later.
Gavin Menzies (described in the Economist article as an "amateur historian") published a book in 2003 entitled 1421: The Year China Discovered the World which became a bestseller but failed to impress professional historians. Menzies' book is the primary thrust of the argument that Zheng He beat Columbus to the New World, and has convinced many lay readers. Menzies is quoted in the Economist article as saying that if the map proves to be authentic then "the history of New World discovery will have to be rewritten." Though the Economist states that "the consequences of the discovery of this map could be considerable" it asks the question "How much does this matter?"
I agree with the author of the article when I state "It doesn't matter at all." It won't change our present views on world history one bit. Though it may say quite a bit about 15th century China, it doesn't matter who discovered the New World first. That is the difference between the amateur and the professional historian. Amateurs will quibble and place tremendous importance on who discovered the New World first, the professional will recognize that Columbus' voyage, whether the first or the tenth, was the one that mattered. Columbus' voyage opened the New World up for European exploration and exploitation. Columbus' voyage led to a revolution in world trade known as the Columbian Exchange, and altered the course of world history.
I am not trying to be snobbish here; I am not saying that a piece of paper (i.e., a degree) means that I (or any other historian for that matter) are the sole authority when it comes to history (though I may be trying to justify pursuing economically worthless professional skills). Rather I am pointing out the difference between amateurish and professional pursuits. Writing academic, peer reviewed work is a far cry from dressing up for Renaissance Faire every spring (no offense to you Ren Faire folk). Though I don't want to put too much real-world importance to the debates that occur within the ivory tower, I still think that is important to know what the real arguments should be about.