Carr, chapter 5 history as progress

Little sense in pre-christian writings of history moving is some direction;

• but Christianity changed that; Last Judgment? Carr is not specific, but this notion imposes a theological component on history;
• historians of the enlightenment saw history as progress toward the goal of perfecion of man's estate. Note his quote of Dampier, 'future ages will see no limit to the growth of man's power over resources of nature and of his intelligent use of them for the welfare of his race' ; or Acton, march of history is an unending progress toward liberty.
• Marxists: the proletarian revolution would realize the ultimate aim of a classless society

But since WW1 and 2, the hypothesis of progress has been refuted/disputed.

Progress and evolution. Are they the same? Is humankind evolving /progressing ('naturally') toward something 'better'?

• the difference between biological inheritance a social acquisition; no measurable biological change is known to have occurred in humans since the beginning of written history
• but the effeciveness of human thinking has been multiplied many timesby learning and incorporating experience.
• history progresses through the transmission of acquired skills from from one generation to another [consider what Lamarckian / social Darwinism suggest on this issue]
• no sane person every believed in a kind of progress that advanced in an unroken, straight line without reverses, deviations, etc.; nor can it mean equal and simultaneous progress for all [??]
• a nation that plays a leading role in the advance of civilization in one period is lulike to play a similar role in the next; too imbued with tradition to adapt.
• In sum: progress in history, unlike evolution in nature, rests on the transmission of acquired assets.

Carr: his thesis: "belief in progress means belief not inany automatic or inevitable process, but in the progressive development of human potentialities.

Objectivity.

Only the future, Carr writes, can provide the key to interpretation of the past; and it is only in this sense that we can speak of an ultimate objectivity in history.

• To praise an historian for objectivity...not simply that he gets his facts right, but rather that he chooses the right facts, applies the right standard of significance
• History recognizes not only achievement, but also 'delayed' achievement, apparent failures that turn out to have made a vital contribution to the achievement of tomorrow.
• History acquires meaning and objectivity only when it establishes a coherent relationship between the past and future.
• Note his discussion of the difference between fact and truth; historical truth lies somewhere between 'valueless facts' and value judgments struggling to transform themselves into facts.