It is therefore not surprising that after the publication of this book (in 1997) Evans drew fiercesome criticism of about the whole historical establishment in Great-Britain and America. He tries to be fair, but cannot help but be critical of much postmodernist history; this is quite easy, as many statements by its advocates verge on the ludicrous.

Kansteiner goes on to state that the fundamental problem with the book is Evans’ failure to convincingly prove his main point, that recourse to the historical record is sufficient to settle disputes and makes it possible to discriminate between false and faithful historical assertions. Steve Smith, 'Truth in an age of challenge', The Times Higher Educational Supplement, 28 November 1997, p. Which Evans had to concede in a response: "Easthope says roundly : 'This is a howler', and I'm afraid he's quite right.Social history is said to have initially been revolutionary in that it shifted emphasis from high politics and “great men” to social movements, economics and “cliometric” or statistical/quantitative approaches. Sir Richard, Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, is no swashbuckling character. On erinevate vaadete tutvustamisel ka ysna mõõdukas: ehkki raamat on suunatud eeskätt vastama postmodernistlike mõtlejate kriitikat (eelkõige, et objektiivset ajalootõde pole), ei ründa Evans neid mõõdutundetult (viitab, et mitmed nende toodud uuendused on olnud ka kasulikud) ega ripsuta yleliia tiiba ka hyperempiirilisust võimalikuks pidavate konservatiividega (ehkki sedastab, et ajaloolise tõe – olgu see pealegi osaline või subjektiivsusest teatvalt mõjutet – leidmine on õigete meetoditega võimalik).

namely 'the invading hordes of semioticians, post-structuralist, New Historicists, Foucauldians, Lacanians and the rest' (p. Pascamodenisme tiba di dalam bidang penulisan sejarah agak baharu sebenarnya iaitu sekitar penghujung tahun 60-an. The most extreme positions in post-modernist thought, we are told, deny the fundamental reality of the past, and argue that all that matters is the interpretation in the present – with every interpretation being equally valid.Evans’ concern is for the hyper-relativists such as Joyce Appleby and Keith Jenkins and he rarely if ever mentions thinkers such as Michel Foucault or Roland Barthes . These caused new issues, such as the legitimacy or otherwise of secondary sources, or whether or not history is a science - the German term applied to the subject has a wider meaning than its usual English translation.

In Defence of History steps aside from the risks entailed in any such critique, preferring a number of sniping remarks along the way.Evans discusses the drawback of postmodernism in history and its rejection of reason and progress as historical forces. Samada hal itu sesuatu yang mendatangkan kelegaan atau kekecewaan adalah bergantung kepada hajat asal para pembaca yang membeleknya. The truth of their lives exists, and we can make sure they are not forgotten by making good evidence-based history to the best of our ability.