The Author Carr has a very stern and specific view on what history is and what being a historian entails and comprises of in its self. Carr uses various adjectives in his description of what it is to be a historian in an effort to elaborately display his view and excitement on the subject of his profession. Carr describes others views and definitions of what history is which gives him a stronger sense of credibility in my opinion because he has an open minded approach and unbiased.
Carr describes the answer of what history is as being: “an answer that consciously or unconsciously reflects our own position in time.” I can completely agree with this theory because though history can be looked at as anything that has preceded an individual’s life, each person may feel that some incidents in time may be more critical and worth recording that others based on personal importance. Something that happened in 1975 may be more applicable to someone who was born in 1989 as opposed to an individual born in 2001. Carr also touches on Professor Sir George Clark’s statement on ‘what is history?’ which states: “It is unique opportunity of recoding, in the way most useful to the greatest number, the fullness of the knowledge which the nineteenth century is about to bequeath. . . By the judicious division of labour we should be able to do it, and bring home to every the last document, and the ripest conclusions of international research.” This to me describes history as being the utmost definition of recollection and recordings found from every moment of remembrance. By listing Clark’s view it allows Carr’s readers to get other opinions and see that he has placed an exponential amount of thought and effort to developing theories well as conducting and compiling his research.
Carr says that being a historian is divided into two selected phases. He claims that a historian does all