I think you're wrong about historiography (and your highschool history teacher too).
"History" is accounts (stories) about the past.
"Historiography" isn't about the past; it's an account of how historians "do" history. I mean, historiography would include accounts of how past historians used to do history.
> I think you're wrong about historiography (and your highschool history teacher too).
you're wrong about me being wrong. I remembered a little better now:
"there is no history, the proper name of this subject is historiography" he taught us this
but also, your reply suggests you missed the point (and my teacher's) that there is no history, it's all accounts by some "historian"
I would use the name meta-history, or 'philosophy of history' for what you describe as 'historiography'.
then again, maybe you're just being nitpicky about things and are focusing on what I said wrong instead of on the point i was trying to make
further again, I cannot help but notice how going forwards "metahistory" may even be understood as the story behind Mark Zuckerberg's giant coorporation
Well, I said that history consists of accounts (stories).
I agree that what I (and most historians) call "historiography" could be called "meta-history". But that activity already has a name; we don't need to construct a new term (with a Greek prefix and a Latin suffix) to stand-in for a word that already works fine.
Historiography isn't some handwavey version of the past; it's the study of how historians do their work. That's the word historians use. Honestly, I think your history teacher got the wrong end of the stick.
Like, Humpty Dumpty had a point: you can use words to mean whatever you want. But it's not helpful for intelligent discourse to redefine commonly-understood terms.
"History" is accounts (stories) about the past.
"Historiography" isn't about the past; it's an account of how historians "do" history. I mean, historiography would include accounts of how past historians used to do history.