You might have missed it in the flood of political news lately, but President Trump's budget proposal proposes to defund the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which helps fund PBS and NPR stations).

You may recall that we ran a previous thread on this topic when the proposal was just a rumor, but now that it's an official proposal we decided to update this and ask you to take action.

The mission of /r/Askhistorians is to provide high-quality historical answers to a wide audience. We usually work online, through our Twitter account, our Tumblr account, and here, but that's not all we do. We talk to historians and bring them here for AMAs. We have (with your help) presented at historical conferences. We also advocate: for good history, for civil discussion, and for keeping historical research going.

That's what we're doing today, and we need your help.

We don't get political for a particular candidate, a particular party, or a particular point of view. We get political when good history matters. If you're American, we're asking you to call your Congressmen and Congresswomen to support funding for the NEA and NEH.

The federal budget process isn't fast, and it isn't straightforward, but it is changeable. Each February, when the president submits his or her budget to Congress, there's a better chance of a cow getting through a slaughterhouse untouched than that budget staying in the same form. That's why your calls matter: Congress catches a lot of flak, but it does do work, particularly in the details of the budget.

And we say call, not email, because calls matter. It's easy to ignore an email; you probably do it a few times on any given day. It's a lot harder to ignore a phone call. Call your Senators and Congresswoman. You won't talk to them directly; you'll talk to a staffer or an intern answering phones. They've been getting a lot of calls lately. Chances are, they'll have a local office as well as their DC office. If you can't get through to one, try the other.

Don't call other Congressmen than your own. It's a waste of time. Don't follow a script; those tend to get ignored. Just say who you are, where you're calling from (city/zip code, if you don't want to give your address), and what you're calling about.

Repetition helps. Put the numbers in your cellphone and give 'em a call when you're headed to work or have a spare minute or two. It doesn't take a lot of time, but it can make a world of good.

Why are you calling?

The National Endowment for the Humanities funds a lot of good things. If you've seen Ken Burns' documentary The Civil War, you've seen some of its work. If you've read Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-45, you've seen some of its work. If you've visited your local museum, chances are that it too received some NEH funding.

There's something else important: NEH funding indirectly supports what you're reading right now.

Many of our moderators, flaired commentators and even ordinary users have jobs that are funded in part or wholly by NEH grants. They have the spare time to offer their knowledge and skills here because of those grants. A lot of the links we provide in our answers exist because of the NEH. The Discovering America digital newspaper archive is supported by the NEH.

The NEH does all of that with just $143 million per year in federal funding. That's just 0.003 percent of the federal budget. If you make $40,000 a year and spent that much of your income, you'd be spending $1.20.

For all the NEH does, that's a good deal.

The previous post had three comments in reply that I'd like to highlight here:

• u/restricteddata on the history of the NEH

• u/khosikulu on the types of grants offered by the NEH

• u/the_alaskan on how the NEH benefits many people who aren't historians

Edited to add this, from u/caffarelli:

If you're making a call for NEA/NEH, please also take a moment to mention Institute of Museum and Library Services which is also on the block, and to be crude, odds are better you'll personally be impacted by it's loss more quickly than any of the other federal humanities funding. IMLS funding is of particular importance to rural libraries and Native American museums and libraries, and can sometimes be the bulk of funding at those libraries. But if you're a patron of smaller public library, your library probably only got the Internet because of an IMLS grant, because that was their largest grant impact during the 90s-00s. It's a quiet, effective and responsible distributor of tiny amounts of federal money, that have nevertheless had an out-sized impact on the quality of public library services available in America.

The American Historical Association once published an article on historical thinking that is very useful. In it, they lay out the five C's of historical thinking:

• change over time,

• context,

• causality,

• complexity, and

• contingency.

The AHA writes

The concepts (...) we believe, together describe the shared foundations of our discipline. They stand at the heart of the questions historians seek to answer, the arguments we make, and the debates in which we engage. These ideas are hardly new to professional historians. But that is precisely their value: They make our implicit ways of thought explicit to the students and teachers whom we train. The five C's do not encompass the universe of historical thinking, yet they do provide a remarkably useful tool for helping students at practically any level learn how to formulate and support arguments based on primary sources, as well as to understand and challenge historical interpretations related in secondary sources.

Change over time is probably an easy concept to grasp: Some things are different from the past today (or at any point in time going back) and other stay the same. Time passing is essentially a process of change and continuity. Recognizing that things are not frozen in time, that both change and continuity are processes that have to take place actively in the sense that they are influenced by time passing is of critical importance to the study of history and takes us right to the next concept.

Context. Both change and continuity do not take place in a vacuum but are affected by the world around them. The AHA article explains this concept by likening it to the open text crawl in the Star Wars movies: In a New Hope, we learn that the events we are about to see take place in a time of Civil War, a long time ago, in a galaxy far away. That Rebels have scored an important victory in stealing the plans to death star and so on. This sets the stage for what is about to unfold so that when we see Vader's Star Destroyer intercepting Leia's ship, we know what is going on broadly, who these people are in relation to each other, and why in the world's name they have spaceships.

Causality is what ties change and context together and what often lies at the heart of our profession: As per the AHA: "Historians use context, change over time, and causality to form arguments explaining past change." When historians devise one of their works, its basic conception will be: I'm looking at this process of change or continuity within the context of its time and will make an argument about its causality. Basically, figuring out why things changed or stayed the same in their broader historical context. Here – and what will become important for the question of method – it is imperative to keep in mind that historians do not have the same luxury of other sciences in working with generating data from experiments but have to work with often only partially complete primary sources. This is why historians will form arguments about the past rather than definitive explanations and why we always keep in mind that for events such as the Reformation or WWI multiple and often integrally related causalities exist.

Which takes us to contingency. It means the realization that every historical outcome is dependent on a set of prior conditions, which in turn are themselves dependent on set of prior conditions and so on and so forth. This not only lets us think about the world and history as an immensely interconnected place, it also sharpens our awareness for the dangers of mono-causality and teleology. Change a single prior existing condition and the outcome could be wholly different. This means that when we argue about causalities, we are aware that we impose an order of events on things ex-post and that there is no such thing as a historical necessary outcome. The loss of WWI was important for the rise of the Nazis but it didn't constitute a historical necessity with the character of a natural law.

And this, taken altogether, is what constitutes complexity. History is messy and complicated. Good historical analysis acknowledges that and takes said complexity into account. History is marked by the simultaneous-ness of change and continuity, by multiple casualties that are intertwined, by an immense context, and by a whole plethora of contingencies. When we write about and consider history, it is imperative to keep this in mind and to acknowledge it. It forms the basis not only for all analysis but for the continuing need to study history and to introduce new perspectives. After all, if it were easy, we'd only need one book on every topic.

##How can we write history

All these factors in how we think about history begs the question: How do we write about history with all its complexities? Every historical text, in fact almost every text at all, from answers in this sub to monographs, to dissertations shares a couple of characteristics: They do have a starting point and an end point and in order to arrive from one at the other, a structure, a narrative.

Take the apocryphal story of Hemingway's six word novel: Betting his colleagues that he could write a novel in six words, he takes a napkin and writes "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." These six words present us a tragic narrative, taking us from a beginning to an end. Similarly, even when discuss a most basic fact in history, the way we write about them can tell different narratives: "After years of combined military effort, the Allies concentrated push into Germany ended the Second World War in Europe with the unconditional surrender of the Third Reich on May 8, 1945." tells a different story than "After their attempt to gain power in Europe, the remnants of the German government saw itself forced to sing an unconditional surrender on May 8,1945 after the defense of Berlin collapsed."

Both of these sentences deal with the same historical event – the unconditional surrender of May 8,1945 – but they tell have different narratives because of their perspective: One tells of Allied efforts and hardships, emphasizing a general context, one tells of German failure linking it to a specific event within that context. Both are valid stories to tell from the primary sources but they give insight into a fundamental realization of writing about history: The written word is the imposition of order on chaos. By bringing thought into a concrete structure of language we construct a narrative that takes from a beginning to an end by telling a story.

All writing is the construction of narrative, so all historical writing is the construction of narrative. But writing about history differs from writing fiction in that history is based on sources available to us and makes the claim of trying to explain and convey what happened in the past. With the above factors of historical thinking, especially complexity and contingency in mind, how do we structure our story? Where can we conceivably start and end since we are unable to realistically write the story of all mankind by ourselves? And what kind of narrative do we set out to tell?

##How do we write history, Part 1: The question

And this is where we near the issue of method. Like in this sub, all academic and other writing about history usually sets out with a specific question in mind; a question which helps us to determine out starting and end point and giving our narrative a basic goal: The goal of arriving at an answer to our question.

As a short digression: There is a plethora of factors that influence the question(s) we ask. Coming from our expertise in a certain area, if we deem them answerable, if they have been asked and answered before, if it makes sense etc. pp. Also, there are of course within the historic professions, questions that are considered better, more novel, interesting and so forth but at the beginning of every historical inquiry stands a question.

So, say, there is our hypothetical person, call him Ed, who knows nothing about WWI except that it started in 1914. So Ed who has heard that this WWI stuff is a pretty big deal, asks himself "Why did WWI start?". That question gives his inquiry points of reference in the sense that Ed at some point will have to arrive in 1914, whether as his starting or end point is still undetermined but when Ed sets out to examine this question he knows that in order to investigate it, 1914 is his reference and he won't start with his research with the fall of the Roman Empire (his investigation might lead him there but Ed knows it is unsuitable starting point).

So Ed sets out on his quest and thinking it is a good point to start, he pulls up an Austrian newspaper from July 28, 1914 (Ed, the hypothetical history guy, has immediate access to all these sources and speaks all languages) and reads "War Declared! After Gavrilo Princip shot Franz Ferdinand, Austria has declared war against Serbia!". So far so good, but Ed then goes on to pull up the next newspaper, a socialist one, and reads "War Declared! The Imperialist powers have because of the crisis of capital declared war to oppress the Proletariat!". Ok, says Ed, let's see what the official documents say and reading an internal Austrian note, he reads "War Declared! Because of decades of Serb revanchism against the Empire, war has become a final necessity!".

Ed is confused. Was it the actions of Gavrilo Princip, the crisis of capitalism, Serb revanchism or the the European system of alliances – as hypothetical Ed also reads – that was the reason WWI broke out? Ed has a question and through that question a basic structure for a narrative: A story that will inevitably involve 1914 as a central point, most likely at the end. But with so many different answers in his sources, how can Ed assess which explanation holds more merit, which is a better explanation. What Ed needs is a method.

##How do we write history, Part 2: The method of source criticism

What we and Ed need in out historical inquiry is a way to order, assess, and interpret the sources we need to answer to answer our question.

The most basic of these methods is what has been called the historical method, which is a procedure of source criticism and hermenutics, i.e. the interpretation of a text by understanding the text as a whole by establishing reference to the individual parts and referencing one's understanding of each individual part to the whole.

This sounds a bit complicated (and both philosophical background and application can be) but in essence, this is about trying to understand a text not solely from its textual content but from its context. In essence, after first asking "What does this text say?", we also need to ask

• When was it written?

• Where was it written?

• Who wrote it?

• On what pre-existing material does it rely?

• In what original form was it produced?

• What is the evidential value of its contents?

These are the questions to establish date, localization, authorship, analysis, integrity, and credibility of the source we have before us and these factors establish validity, reliability, and relevance to our question.

So, this is the first step we need to take with every source because – to return to our friend Ed – Ed does this with his newspaper articles and finds out that the socialist newspaper article he read is actually written in 1967 in Vietnam by a French educated Vietnamese Communist relying on the writing of Dimitrov in the 1930s but largely copied from an Indian book written in 1939. Shocked, he decides this article holds little relevant evidence for his quest of finding out why WWI started.

But method is much more. It is also the way how we in a broader sense approach answering our question based on the theoretical prism through which we view our sources.

##How do we write history, Part 3: Theoretical, methodological approach

Acknowledging complexity, multiple and interrelated causalities and contingency in history, we need a further way to structure our narratives when answering our questions about history. Source criticism helps us determining which sources are reliable and relevant but we still need a way of figuring out what sources we need and how we relate them to each other. In short, we need some kind of framework to fit them into.

In acknowledging that history is complex it is this framework that we chose that provides us with an all important thing: Perspective. Given how complex history is we can view it through different lenses and perspectives and the stories we tell will look different and can tell different yet complimentary narratives that are all part of a larger historical truth. This perspective as well as the question we ask are of course interrelated and before even setting out to find sources, we need to consider both.

Ed realizes that in his quest to find out why WWI started, he is forced to consider a lot of approaches: There is a history of international diplomacy and conflicts in the Balkans, there is a history of economic interests, there is a history of discourse in that politicians as well as populations saw war as inevitable at some point contributing to its outbreak. At the same time, the history of this war looks completely different from the perspective of a lowly soldiers, an inhabitant of a European colony, a European statesman etc. pp.

In our historical quest, we must often decide which story we want to tell from whose perspective broadly because this gives us not only sources to consider but also places their interpretation in a framework. A discursive analysis will lead to different sources needed and different interpretation of said sources than a Whig history approach.

While at first, these different questions and approaches are pretty much all valid, there will be and must be arguments about what approaches, theories, and perspectives are better, in the sense that they further our understanding better, than others. Some theories and approaches have been rejected by historians from earlier because they do capture the complexity of historical events worse than others. There are theories and approaches that make little sense in regards to certain questions etc.

But the essence of it is: Doing history, in the sense of writing historical inquiries, is more complex than just looking at dates and sources. Methods require careful consideration and a weighing of historical evidence and historical study involves more than just going to the archive. Learning how to think historically, how to consider and ask questions, how to decide and then apply a method is not something people just know but that is taught to us, either by careful study of literature and/or gaining a degree at a university.

Discussing these methods like we do in this recurring feature, considering the different perspectives and approaches is a large part of what historians and thus I hope many of you enjoy this recurring feature.

Here is a compilation of it.

Edit: I guess I just associated it with someone falling. The compilation shows it's more diverse than that.

As seen in these images where the blocks appear to flow down. The same thing has been documented in both Greece and Peru.

In his letter to the English People, King Cnut, also known as Canute and a bunch of other spellings I'm sure, styles himself, "king of all England, and of Denmark, Norway, and part of Sweden" during his introduction. Where does he get the "part of Sweden" from? According to Wikipedia, his father was king of Denmark and parts of Norway, so how did nut come to acquire the rest of Norway and the mysterious "part of Sweden?"