Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Is History True?
Is the study of history about pursueing the definite truth of what happened? Or is the truth of what happened in history something that changes depending upon the lense in which you examine it? Gie your thoughts on these questions and please include both your insight into this article and the questions you still have? If you have anyother questions about the class or the homework you can email me at ryan_bouchard@sumner.wednet.edu.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No matter what why you look at it: history is concrete. What happened, happened. We can't change it no matter what lenses we look through--
ReplyDeletethe Titanic still sank
we still killed the Indians
and Elvis is still dead.
It is only through human error and an inability to understand (or find) the clues of the past that the stories history tells us become muddled and unclear. Our misconceptions and delusions about history are constantly changing as new evidence pertaining to said events floods in, however, the past itself, never will.
I believe that history is the pursuit of truth. That, yes, there are opinions and views that have sometimes tainted history but there is always concrete evidence that all can agree happened even if they don't want to admit that it did. History is all we have from the past and all we have to learn from. Although some may have been written with commentary or by someone adding there opinion into it there is still absolute truth that can be found. No matter who wrote it, or when it was written or what perspective they had there is still truth in the matter.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that history can ever be completely acurate. There is always going to be a bias in the story or information. However I don't believe that it is impossible to find the truth. What happened happened and we can't change that no matter what we say about it. The difficulty comes when we have to determine what factually happened and what is just someone's oppinions or beliefs of what happened. It is when we are navigating through these waters when we get into muddled truths about what really happened.
ReplyDeleteIt has a lot to do on how you define history. Someone can call a story about the past history, and in this case there may be very little truth in it. However if you define history as strictly the evidence from the past, as Oscar Handlin does, then it is all truth. If history is what actually happened then in some cases it may be impossible to really find history. It becomes impossible because of the numerous amounts of documents, and stories written about the event making what actually happened muddled and unclear. Sometimes it is not always clear what the real history is and what the biased stories are. And even when it is clear some people still refuse to believe it, saying that people just made it up. There are some people, granted very few but still some, who still say that the entire Nazi thing in Germany was a made up story and they were never really persecuting the jews.
It is a thin line and it is hard to determine the facts from the stories sometimes. However I do believe that there is some truth in every bit of history, just perhaps not all of it.
History throughout history is an ever changing story. I say it is a story because without the insight of a first hand account written for the purpose of an unbiased history, all a history has is intelligent insights and conclusions. These insights, although often intelligently created, are themselves fiction and because of this one piece of fiction, the whole history is thusly fiction. Although this sounds harsh to the historians of the world, it is they whom brought it upon themselves, however naive they are to this fact, their own past and alliances to different groups define subtle or not so subtle bias in their accounts.
ReplyDeleteBecause of all this bias, there can never be a true account of what happened anywhere at a certain time. However, I believe that history is not truth, instead it is an account of thousands of viewpoints that are constantly changing as history rages on.
The story of our past is never going to be true, however I do not believe it ever needs to be, at least not completely. We need our culturally defined histories to be who we are today, either as an individual or as a group. A vast majority of people in the world dedicate themselves to finding a greater truth. History is merely branch of this quest and it is forever our determination to follow a path to truth, whether or not it has an eventual conclusion.
I completely agree with William McNiell. People cant be trusted to deliver the whole truth about history. Things like pressure to deliver a certain message about a specific group will cause historians to alter the truth making it impossible to know exactly what happened.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I agree with Oscar Handlin is that history is not the past. History is evidence from the past. In that case history gives us a vague sense of what happened way back when. however; our enterpretation of the evidence can also lead us to a false conclusion.
There are simply too many groups who all have a different opinion/interpretation of things that happened in our past. Also you must take into account that a persons point of view greatly affects how an event is interpreted.
For example: If the U.S. government were to issue a new law saying that anyone not living in a house has to leave the country. Anyone who is poor/ doesnt have a house will say that the government is being tyranical. However, a rich man who has a house and a secure income will say that it is good that the government is getting rid of all the homeless people.
Therefore the rich people will say the government was good,but the poor people will say the government is terrible. So it will be recorded in 2 different perspectives and the 2 groups will bash each other. So itwould then be impossible to tell if the government was good or bad.
The example is a bit extreme but thats basically what has happened all throughout human history. Multiple groups each with a different perspective who interpret the event in a different way.
So my conclusion is that the only way we can possibly know our history is if each one of us diggs up evidence of our past and seperates fact from opinion.
The history of humankind creates a way for us as a people to look back and see what has happened before to try and shape our current decisions. In this sense, history is a great tool. As Handlin points out, when history becomes a mean, it becomes tainted with bias and opinions, and can never be an exact timeline without interpretation. This would lead one to believe that knowledge of our past could never be exactly and undeniably true, and thus falling into agreement with McNiell's argument that all history presented by historians is fabricated and facts are presented to persuade rather than just to be.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that history in itself must logically be true. If you put history into a paradox where there is no human interaction or interpretation of human history, and you are left with history as a singular object and not a study, then in must be true, because what has happened has happened, and it will only happen in one way, in one timeline. For an example, let's say there is a goat. Twenty people come along and dress the goat in their culture’s clothing, and end up teaching it to walk and talk like a human. Although the goat looks like no other goat, and it can do things other goats can't, it is still a goat. In its base natural state, it is what it is. I believe the same concept applies to history.
When historians are introduced and interpretations of events are added to the timeline, and history and facts are used to persuade, then a human bias is undoubtedly added. Every action that is ever made by any human being is made to achieve some type of goal. History, therefore, is no different. The historians all have goals that they wish to accomplish with their writing and interpretation of history. Therefore, their goals will alter the interpretation. Although this may seem natural and inevitable, I honestly believe the majority of historians today attempt to add as little cultural and personal bias as possible.
The US (as far as I know) does not have a propaganda machine spitting out false history, so the state does not control how history is being delivered and interpreted. Religious and political spin may be put on some history in our nation (for example when speaking of dictatorships) but this follows a general cultural ideal that democracy is the best political structure. The historians will without a doubt express some bias in this area and form opinions which show through in their telling of history. People do posses the power to see that these opinions put into history are just that: opinions. The opinions will without a doubt appear. As every culture has different opinions and ideals, they will have different goals, so history will differ from place to place. This does not mean that the opinions cannot be dug through to find a basic line of facts.
Therefore I believe that although one cannot escape the interpretations of history, if one strips away the opinions, and views history as a timeline of events, then history in itself is still true. Even if they are spun and interpreted, the basic facts, the basic timeline of what has unfolded does not.
History should be about finding the definite truth but a lot of the time it is not. People go about with their own means and come to conclusions about history that they want to believe, not necassarily what actually happened. It is very subjective to a person's personal beliefs. It may be based upon actual facts, but they use the facts to come up with their own conclusions that are way off the mark. History is very much about what lense is looked through. We can't trust anything that isn't unbiased and since nothing unbiased we can't truly know what happened unless we were there to experience it firsthand. So since none of us were there to experience it firsthand there is no way for us to know what really happened.
ReplyDeleteHistory should be about finding definite truth but it so happens in our society that it is not. It has become a jumbled mess that people dig through and create their own conclusions that are not exactly true and its what they want to believe and not what is right. It is like McNeil said "One person's truth is another's myth." Though it may be based upon actual facts, they are way off the mark because they are their own personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteHistory is a way for us to look back on human history and find out what decisions to make today. It is very much what lense you look through. We cant really trust anything that isnt unbiased but that will never happen so we must read it and trust it. It is our job though, to peel away the fake and get down to the bone of the story. The pure truth in the middle of the made up crap. The basic story is the same. So we all must dig up fact from fiction and find out what is really right and wrong. That is what I believe.
Finding the definite truth shoould be what history is about, but it is not. A lot of opinions and bias is thrown into 'history' these days. People convince themselves and others to believe what they want and don't even consider what actually happened. McNeill wasn't far from what actually is happening, they take what happened and put their own twist on it, and there we have 'Mythistory'.
ReplyDeleteThe article itself made me realize that history,today, isn't what it use to be and thats sad. History use to be what people could look back on and learn from what happened, what worked and what didn't, and now it's just people's own opinions and stories.
---Cailie Guyant
Truth of events should be what historians try to portray, but unfortunately thats not what you find in their writings. History is riddled with bias and opinions, as it is impossible to write without any bias at all. It is as McNeil says "Where in such a maelstrom of conflicting opinions, can we hope to locate historical truth?" Well, what truths you will find are going to be the collected agreements of multiple historians from many different points of view. There, you can hope to find some measure of the truth and not a biased opinion, or 'mythistory'.
ReplyDeleteWe will never be able to fully grasp the entirety of past events. I agree with Mr. McNeil, that even in a world without bias, however unlikely that may be in today’s society, historians can not fully portray the events of our past in just words. Words are only capable of telling us so much. To fully grasp an event and the effect it had, a person would have to experience it first hand. This aside, no one can deny that the truth of our past is absolute even if we have not found it.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Mr. Handin that dates will fend off any potential bias. I think that they can lead us in the right direction but their still remains a certain amount of subjectivity in putting those facts and dates together to create a theory. The United States, as a democracy, allows historians to speak their opinions without any repercussions. With this freedom, comes the inevitable bias. While many historians will strive for an unbiased analysis, everyone has a bias which makes everybody an individual. Bias appears in all types of governments. Dictatorships undoubtedly create the most extreme cases of bias. As Oscar Handin points out, “…the Nazis, once in power, burned the noncomforming books…” so that only their opinions were heard. Whose is to say that they did not also burn key evidence that could have potentially led to their persecution? If true, that means they could have prevented the discovery of an event that could have changed the way we look at the world. Even if the Nazis did not destroy any evidence, it is not a stretch to assume that throughout history civilizations have tampered with evidence to defend their reputation. So how can we ever trust that all the evidence, itself, is even true?
Bias is often portrayed in a bad light. But many times, we can not handle the truth or would not want to hear that our forefathers were brutal murderers who killed for pleasure. Historians may only be trying to protect our pride and keep us naïve toward the reality of history. Many of us would rather be boastful rather than cynical.
Is the truth of what happened in history something that changes depending upon the lense in which you examine it?:
ReplyDeleteMy thought is that the lense by which you examine something may do many things. It may show only what you want to see, or it may show more. It may blind you to parts of the truth, or the whole truth all together. There are two sides to a lense however. No matter what, the truth, the side which is looking back at us, remains the same. The truth of what happened in history does not change.
Is History True?: The answer is undoubtably, yes.
As Oscar Handlin stated in his paper titled Truth in History,
‘Truth is absolute; it is as absolute as the world is real. It does not exist because idividuals wish it to anymore than the world exists for their convenience.’ (5)
History itself is true, unchanging and remains the same no matter how far time continues to stretch beyond it. Those of us who hope to learn from or evaluate history however will never fully understand that which we were not there to witness. Even those who witnessed an event in history or were a direct part of the history we so desperately wish to grasp may not fully comprehend all that occured.
Both history and change are constant. Though history does not change, the records and understandings of the past does. Slanted views, bias and personal gain for a historian could all come into play during the retelling of a historical event. Evidence may be lost or destroyed, but that does not change the occurance which that evidence pertained to. History will remain true, even after the truth has left our understanding.
“In sum, the use of history is to learn from the study of it and not to carry preconceived notions or external objectives into it.” - Oscar Handlin.
ReplyDeleteHistory. When most people hear that word you can almost see their eyes glaze over as they tune out whatever information it is that will soon pass in and out of their ears.
In my opinion (which is free and worth every penny) history cannot possibly be free of a lense or cleared of bias because it is an individual's account of a circumstance. In the novel, 1984 written by author George Orwell, the character Winston worked in an office where he distorted the truth so that it always appeared that Big Brother was right and correct. We may not live in a society where totalitarianism reigns supreme, but the main concept is there.
For example:
During the Civil War, both the Union and Confederacy thought that their causes were the right one just like Evangelical Missionaries felt that it was their God-given duty to explore other nations to convert all who crossed their path into Catholics/Christians. Now the purpose of that tangent was to point out that this does not make their history or view on a situation necessarily a myth; it just means that every person may have a different point of view or scope on things. It takes a lot of effort to look past one’s likes and dislikes in order to find the truth.
History is and will always be true no matter which way you look at it, but the challenge is to seek and discover which versions of a tale are most credible. I also feel as though the historian’s challenge is to recreate a circumstance so that people become more involved and active in history because anyone can say that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but not every person can make someone feel as though they were a part of this man’s life.
All in all, the historian’s job is to seek as much truth as can possibly be found without adding bias or looking through a lense.
When Fischer states, “The real danger is not that a scholar will delude his readers, but that he will delude himself” (pg. 1), makes me realize that history probably does change depending on the lens it is examined. History can have a myriad of different views, and for there to be only one right view, is silly to me because history is always changing throughout time depending on the evidence that has been found and the scope one is looking through.
ReplyDelete“Different cultures evolved differently, the erroneous conclusion that judgments among them were impossible” (pg. 5); therefore I agree that different cultures will have vastly different opinions and this will more than likely carry into their views on historical findings. I believe this because I think they have learned a different thinking process because of their different lifestyles, which therefore puts them into a different perspective while researching their topic. I do believe that not every view is always true; that people will not always be right, even if they think they are. I believe there’s a difference in knowing what you believe, and knowing what’s correct. Your view will not always be the right one, but just because it isn’t right, does not mean it is not valid.
History is supposed to be free of bias, but in reality, nothing is free of bias. There will always be the slightest preference towards one side because history is supposed to “present what actually happened” (pg. 4). Everything happens as a result of something else, like a domino effect, which explains why there will always be the slightest bias in history we read; to present what actually happened, historians need to take into consideration both sides, and once both sides have been distinguished, the historian will agree with one side more than the other; it’s human nature, but as long as the historian present’s what actually happened, the bias can be justified.
Overall, for me, it’s hard to say what I believe history is about. I believed history was about pursuing the definite truth; that history is the definite truth and there was no question behind it, that bias was not accounted for. Now, I also believe that the definite truth is different depending on which lens it is looked through, depending on what bias is present. Each lens has a different view/answer because you’re taking different evidence into consideration which makes the answer different from the one you started with. I believe my answer will become more concrete as the year goes on; after I learn how to examine history more efficiently and thoroughly.
Historical review has always required a certain degree of situational understanding and specific perception to understand. The analysis of a character or event will differ from person to person based on their experiences, views, and their understanding of an event. If one is to take into account history with any small degree of efficiency, then one must assume that there are certain scientifically backed facts that cannot be disproven within a reasonable doubt and must therefore be assume true. We do this whenever we study history, usually for the sake of argument or further historical study. If we read from a book that the mongols invades europe, then we assume that it is true unless we hear or read otherwise.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the question; is history true? There are two unarguable facts that define written recordings: There will always be a chance that history didn't happen as it was recorded and historical accuracy will always be affected by the perspective and viewpoints of those involved and those taking it into account.
One fact about history that must be understood, is that it is as much a social matter as it is a historical one. Even modern history can be distorted through political or social views. The most a student of history can do is to take facts from several sources, compare the discrepancies and the similarities, and from that draw his own conclusion. The most important thing to do is to remember that history isn't concrete and that even your own views effect how you view or portray an event.
you people are so smart! i love looking through your lense! i like this IB HOA website, its better than myspace!!!:D
ReplyDeleteThe answer to this question really depends on how truth is defined. If one perceives truth as “the state of being in accord with fact or reality”, then I would have to cede that history is loosely based on truth for a few reasons; the first of which is most obvious: BIAS (Webster’s Dictionary)! As was previously stated by so many others, it is impossible for any event to be communicated with complete objectivity because everyone has an opinion on everything. Also, it is impossible for humans to capture every detail, both major and minor, that occurs during each “historical event”. This makes for a vastly distorted retelling of events, quite similar to viewing the scene of a puzzle with pieces missing. Furthermore, as Handlin illustrates, historians can fill in these gaps by passing “judgment upon observers reports of what they thought they saw” and make conjectures leaving things more skewed then they had been before(Handlin, 10). Worst of all, deliberate exploitation of said events, in the form of propaganda, may be concocted to pacify or manipulate the masses. On the other end of the spectrum, one may define truth as a “transcendent or spiritual reality”, in which case history becomes true if one believes it is (Webster’s Dictionary). From this standpoint, one could argue that every perspective is accurate and valid because it is what someone somewhere believes. In conclusion, this is not a simple question, but a philosophical mystery; it has been pondered in decades past and will continue perplexing 11th grade high school students for many more to come.
ReplyDeleteThe study of history is not presuing a definate truth to what happened. This is mainly because the truth of history is altered through different prespectives. It is true that the events happened but the reasons behind it and the views of its impact change upon who is telling it. I beleive that our quest as historians is not to find the truth because the truth changes based on our view point. Our goal as historians is to study the impact of the event and use that to further our knowledge of life and everything else. this is because life is everything else that happened back when still impacts us know and our goal as historians is to understand why.
ReplyDeleteHistory, as it is presented to us, cannot be considered true or 100% accurate. A Historian can only give us his opinions toward pieces of factual data from the past. And although his views may be correct and precise, no one can be sure of it. Bias involving the study of history is a major problem that deserves further elaboration.
ReplyDeleteAs a Historian gathers their evidence of the past and attempts to form a conclusion or story, whether he knows it or not, he has bias toward something that could ultimately strike his work as lies. Groups of people all want history to go a certain way, which may be different from another group of people. A Historian can only create one story out of the factual data he has gathered, and that will only please one group of people, whether he intended to please that particular group from the beginning of his work or not. This could break out in violence, hatred, or chaos. As William H. McNeill states, "One person's truth is another's myth, and the fact that a group of people accepts a given version of the past does not make that version any truer for outsiders," which supports my opinion that different groups will beleive different history's. In this case how can two history's be true?
After having read two conflicting articles by authors William H. McNeill and Oscar Handlin on whether history can be considered true, I have formed the opinion that history can never be true, even if it really is(But we will never know that).
The whole idea of history is to look back and realize what mistakes were made and how to correct them in the future. Whether or not history is true does not make it any more powerful or profound. It is what it is. It happened and nothing can change that. I think that history should be referred to as a place of reference and ideas. If it worked once it could work again.
ReplyDeleteHistory always has and most likely continue to be written by the winners. The opposing side is either wiped out or disregarded because they lost. History will always be biased and even when we try to factor out the bias we add bias of our own. Understanding history is an ongoing process in which there are no wrong answers, but merely differing opinions and views.