History Extension Report
Evaluate David Irving’s use of the internet for historical publication.
As Dr. Carl Smith writes, “Has the unregulated culture of the Internet made cyberspace a bloated refuge for work of questionable value that otherwise couldn't–and shouldn't–see the light of day? .... Is it possible, in short, to do “serious” history on the web?", this question challenges the very nature of historical publication online. Prominent historical publications such as Trenches on the Web have gained reputation due to their acceptance by the wider historical community, yet lesser known historians, or historians who do not work in a professional context struggle to gain recognition. One such historian is rogue revisionist David Irving, who was shunned from the credible stream of historical publication after his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and connections to the Holocaust denial movement.
The reliability and benefit of digital history is only a modern historical debate, but one which divides the discipline. Some, such as Smith, see it’s merit in presenting historical material on a larger scale than that which is possible in a museum or book. Such a medium saw successful online exhibitions such as the British Museum’s Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian’s Infinity of Nations. These works are both backed by credible institutions, and are interested in a branch of history deemed acceptable by both the historical community and society. Yet the unmonitored nature of the internet leaves room for criticism, as Daniel Cohen and Roy Rozenwig stressed, “With Google now indexing more than eight billion pages, a full qualitative assessment of historical information and writing on the Web is well beyond the ability [of] any person or even team of people.” Yet even Cohen and Rozenwig note the benefits, “A much deeper and denser historical record, especially one in digital form, seems like an incredible opportunity and gift.” The question must be asked however, while established and distinguished institutions such as the British Museum and the Smithsonian may be aiming to add to a corpus of reliable historical information, can Irving be considered to be pursuing a similar path?
David Irving is a British author whose works are primarily concerned with the German perspective of the World War II conflict, especially the involvement of the Third Reich. He began his collection of over thirty works with The Destruction of Dresden (1963) which garnered both critical and historical acclaim, despite it’s anti-Allie standpoint. Yet as his works ventured further from mainstream opinion regarding the events of World War II and entered the territory of Holocaust Denial, as in his 1977 book Hitler’s War wherein he attempted to explain Hitler’s ignorance of the ‘Final Solution’, much of the historical community began to view his work with a sense of skepticism. Jerome De Groot says of Irving, “[He] is in some ways the epitome of the public historian - not part of the academy ... a maverick, looking to a wider public audience rather than the circumscribed elite”. However most historians and historical commentators express a far less romantic view of Irving, Anthony Lewis calling him “a racist faker.” Much of Irving’s widespread opposition is a product of the libel case he brought against Deborah Lipstadt, a prominent academic of Jewish studies, after she referred to him as a “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda”, in her book Denying The Holocaust. The trial that proceeded discredited both Irving and his historical method, leaving him little standing in the historical school. This forced him to create his own publishing house, Focal Point Publishing, and he kept an online blog which chronicled not only his interpretation of the legal battle, which spanned a four year period, but also continues presently as a avenue for his assessment of current world events.
Richard Evans, expert witness in the Lipstadt-Irving trial wrote of Irving’s website, “Throughout the trial, Irving posted more or less daily reports on the case on his website. These seldom bore close relationship to what had gone on in court.” Irving currently maintains on his website for Focal Point Publishing, his newsletter Action Report Online, information about his book tours, archives of his blog posts and an online bookstore among a host of other internet facilities.
^^^ This paragraph will keep on going.
Also my essay has footnotes, but they won't show up?
Planning to have finished a draft by Thursday's lesson.
How does this all look? I think this is where I will start getting into some in depth analysis into Irving's method, rhetoric, selection criteria etc, going to work on it tomorrow during my study periods.
Self-assessment
Feeling quite happy at the moment, feels like its coming along quite well. My sources are coming together, but I feel like maybe I keep repeating the same source, maybe need to expand my horizons in that department. I am thinking of my analysis mostly looking at his chronicling of the trial, as this is an area with which I am very familiar, whereas my knowledge regarding say the bombing of Dresden is a little rougher.
Thanks guys :)
No comments:
Post a Comment