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

John Kerry absolutely amazes me!  In 2004 he dissed everyone he served with in Vietnam calling them names and besmirching their behavior.  Now that he's interested in running for President again, he again slams our troops, calling them unintelligent.  I'm glad I'm not one of his handlers!  What a nightmare!  It's bad enough that the media reports the deaths in Iraq, but won't talk about the good things that our men and women are doing over there, such as rebuilding sewers, schools, water supplies, moving supplies around.  Not only does the media spend their time telling us how "badly" everything is going, but now we've got the leaders of the Democrats telling those serving (and who've died, also) that they're stupid, unintelligent, and uneducated. 

Why don't we send a "Tokyo Rose" over there too.  I'm sure they could a radio or TV voice over there telling them these things, as if our media doing isn't enough.  I hope that on election day that we send a message to the Dems telling them that we support our troops, home and abroad, and we're tired of them bashing the warriors, soldiers, sailors and flyers, evangelical Christians, and anyone else who thinks they're off base (heck, they're not even in the stadium).

I recently heard about the video that CNN aired showing "insurgent" snipers shooting a U.S. Soldier while the reporter and his cameraman stood idly by and watched, doing nothing to either stop this killing or doing anything to prevent them from killing other U.S. or allied personnel.  I don't understand how CNN can stand by and watch our enemies kill our men and do nothing, and then air the video showing them doing it.  Will that reporter or his camera man go the family of that soldier and explain to them why they let it happen?  Of course not!  That would mean facing the consequences of their actions.

I don't recall that in World War II that we had "correspondents" embedded with the Germans or the Japanese.  Or that during the Korean War we had "correspondents" embedded with the North Koreans or the Chinese, or that during the Vietnam War we had "correspondents" embedded with the North Vietnamese or Chinese.  So why is it OK now? 

As far as I'm concerned, these so called reporters are traitors against the United States, England, or any other country that they are citizens of who are allies of ours.  We are fighting a war against people who want us dead.  Not just our military personnel, but all of us.  Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, not stopping our enemy from killing our men and women, and not preventing them from having the capability to fight in the future is aiding the enemy, and they are traitors, helping our enemies kill our men and women.

I also believe that CNN and its managers and leaders are traitors for airing a video that shows an enemy killing our soldiers, which gives them encouragement to do it again.  Airing that video helps them, not us.  Why don't they just give away the positions, strength and intentions of all of our units in Iraq? 

I would like to see Anderson Cooper, or whatever his name is go the the family of soldier who was killed and explain it to them.  I will never, ever, listen to, watch, or read another CNN newscast. 

I explained what I'd heard to a friend of mine and told me that his understanding is that our men have permission to shoot such groups, and treat any "reports" embedded with them as part of the group and not to allow their presence to affect their decision to shoot.  I praise our commanders for this decision hope they stick to their decision. 

It's pretty sad when our soldiers not only have to worry about our enemies, can't even trust people who are supposed to be on our side to protect and help our own.