History or Herstory: What the heck is this?

Recently I was reading on a website about writing resumes, something I find myself in need of doing because I was recently laid off.  I came across this line:

“Putting yourself in the moccasins of the person doing the hiring is the first, and most important, step in writing a resume that markets you rather than describes your history or herstory.[1]”

Now, I’ve seen the word “herstory” in other writings, and, in fact, it first appeared to me in a writing class a few years ago, touted with a comment about being non-racists/not against women and using this to indicate that “history” could be either “his-story” or “her-story.”  Quite frankly, I’m getting very annoyed at reading the works of people who advertise themselves as writing experts who aren’t even interested doing their research before deciding to put forward, or even worse, embrace, something this stupid.

I’ve also found this phenomenon with other words, such as niggardly, which I’ll bring up a little later.  After coming across “herstory” in the article I was reading, I decided to look up the etymology of the word.  It wasn’t an exhaustive search, but I found this at the Online Etymology Dictionary (www.etymonline.com):

1390, "relation of incidents" (true or false), from O.Fr. historie, from L. historia "narrative, account, tale, story," from Gk. historia "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative," from historein "inquire," from histor "wise man, judge," from PIE *wid-tor-, from base *weid- "to know," lit. "to see" (see vision). Related to Gk. idein "to see," and to eidenai "to know." In M.E., not differentiated from story; sense of "record of past events" probably first attested 1485. Sense of "systematic account (without reference to time) of a set of natural phenomena" (1567) is now obs. except in natural history. What is historic (1669) is noted or celebrated in history; what is historical (1561) deals with history. Historian "writer of history in the higher sense," distinguished from a mere annalist or chronicler, is from 1531. The O.E. word was þeod-wita.

Now, according to this, the word we use as “history” is derived from the French word “historie”, which derives from the latin “historia” meaning a narrative, account, tale or story.  I don’t see anything in the French or Latin precursor that says anything about his’ or hers’.  Eventually the English word evolved to refer to formal researched and documented accounts of past events (which means that some of what is being taught in our schools, both secondary and post-secondary, is not true history, but supposition or pure fantasy, but certainly not based in historical fact).

In order to be politically correct, we assume that English words have been made up to descrimate against the sexes (history vs. herstory), the races (niggardly) or other aspects of life, position, political bent or whatever. 

The word “herstory,” as I understand, was introduced by feminists and women’s liberation fanatics because “it was time that the woman’s side of the story was told, instead of just the man’s”

Now, I agree that women played large roles in history.  We see this in Biblical accounts, in Chinese history (where the mother or sister of various emporers reigned behind the scenes), in European history, where similar situations existed.  The complaint seems to be that women are largely ignored by historians.  The fact is, that in ancient and older history, women’s roles in society were different.  Whether that was good or bad is not for historians to judge.  History reports the facts, not the relative “fairness” of the facts.

To change our vocabulary in ignorance of these facts, renders the reader uninformed and led into ignorance, and it shows the writers ignorance.  If you want to be a real writer, use real words, and understand what they mean, and if necessary, find out where they came from.  If you make up words to sound politically correct, or “with the times” or “with it” as we used to say when I was in high school, then you’re fooling yourself and misleading others.

I mentioned the word “niggardly” who some have recently claimed is a slam against blacks (I have trouble calling them “African Americans”, unless I’m a “Norwegian-Swedish American” rather than a white).  I looked up this word also, and lo and behold, it has nothing to do with race (any more than “history” has to do with sex):

1366, nygart, of uncertain origin. The suffix suggests Fr. origin (cf. dastard), but the root word is probably related to O.N. hnøggr "stingy," from P.Gmc. *khnauwjaz (cf. Swed. njugg "close, careful," Ger. genau "precise, exact"), and to O.E. hneaw "stingy, niggardly," which did not survive in M.E.

Now, for this word, it appears here (using the same online dictionary as described above, though a year or so ago I did look it up in Merriam-Webster and said pretty much the same) that this word derives from one or a combination of words from either French, Norse, Swedish, or Old English, and means stingy, close or careful. 

‘Nuff said.  I am put off by writers who use words to sound politically correct instead of using words the way they were intended.  Readers (or listeners) who take offense at a word they read or hear should do two things before they complain and accuse the writer or speaker of racism or some other “ism.”  They should consider the context and then find a dictionary and actually learn something instead of remaining, and proving themselves, ignorant.

Dale Carlson