History question...?

Question

Do you believe in objectivity? In other words, one truth in history? One right answer in history?

Answer 1

Well, are you a Modernist, a Post-Modernist, or a Post-post-Modernist? If the first, then yes, there is one true history. If you are the second, then no, history itself is an illusion with only the truth that you can take from it in the moment. If you are the third, then you just aren't sure and would rather hide behind academic theoretic language than actually state a definitive belief.

Technically, yes I believe there is one truth in history. Science demands it (the past being a defined position in the space-time continuum that continues to exist though we do not continue to experience it). However, I do not believe that history can be produced 100% correctly. Historians always have to ask "is this source capable of telling the truth" (i.e., did the person writing the account know the truth), "is this source willing to tell the truth" (i.e., was there external pressure to gloss over things, or did the source dislike the individuals on which the history was focused), and "is the source reliable on those things which we can verify?" (i.e., if the source makes a factual claim, such as Bob the Plumber was Roman Emperor from 13 C.E. to 298 C.E., can it be verified, and what is the sources record on such verifications). These questions are often dependent on the historian’s own judgment (though often with good reason). People can make mistakes, so the history we know today might be different than the history we know tomorrow.

Furthermore, sometime there are claims in history that, even though we do not have textual reasons to disbelieve, there are other reasons to disbelieve. Such as when records claim that a king lived almost three times the average lifespan of everyone else of the time period, or when a monk hung his cloak on a beam of light (both real examples from "histories"). This generally has to do with our own understanding of the university; entire categories of history are discarded because we simply find then unbelievable because they include miracles and other seemingly impossible things. They may be impossible, but we are assuming such rather than knowing such definitively.

Further still, we are only as good as our own perceptions. Before the woman's right movement, women's role in history wasn't considered (now it is). As modern society shifts its concerns, so does the focus of history. This isn’t to say that old history was wrong, but usually incomplete.

Think of history as an incredibly complex mathematical equation with an ungodly number of variables. IF we had all the variables, THEN history could be determined to a very exacting degree. However, out of (let us say) thirty million variables for the life of Caesar, we only have eight variables actually defined. We can get a semblance of an answer, but not a good answer.

As a side note, Historiography is the study of historians and how they present history, NOT the process of how historians analyze history itself (which is referred to as the Historical Method, similar to the Scientific Method). One might well call historiography the history of history.

Answer 2

No. And history is not taught this way. Historians are trained in the art of historiography - it is a form of qualitative research whereby historians analyze the secondary source material related to historical events and draw conclusions about how previous historians interpreted those events. Interpretation is the key and we frame history in terms of our modern position of reference.

There is little certainty in history. We know for certain that the South lost the American Civil War, but there is little consensus among historians as to why. And the "whys" of history are what remains important.

There is an old saying - each generation writes its own history. And this is true. Our views on historical events differ greatly from those of our ancestors. That doesn't make them any "truer," they are just fresh interpretations.

Answer 3

History is what a bunch of men agreed on, at least I believe that was what Napolean said. History is written by the victor. Clear example is the American Revolution. To the US we rebeled against injustice and won our independence. To England that was an act of treason. Which is correct? Well it was treason as we took up arms against the King. On the other hand by winning that basically throws out the treason.

Answer 4

I believe that history is based upon who is telling the story. For example, 2 different people may witness a car accident. Each may have seen it differently and their accounts may not match. History is similar...talk to a soldier who fought on D day. same location, same battle, two different perspectives, opinions or accounts. There is no one truth to a historical event.

Answer 5

There is a saying that history is written by the winners, and of course it will be very one-sided, I am a history student and am currently doing a project on the Irish rebellion of 1798.

Answer 6

Do you folks rather like historical past?! I without doubt hate it. The most effective factor I like approximately historical past is our trainer when you consider that he is rather humorous however we are getting a brand new trainer quickly besides. I simply discover it insanely dull. And sure, I decide on maths to historical past. All my peers are doing historical past for his or her assessments, I look to be the one person who is not. I recognise a few folks could discover it exciting, however I'm without doubt no longer a kind of folks :)

Answer 7

Objectively, history proves, but one thing, "power corrupts...!"