Can someone please explain different historical interpretations for me?

Question

I am currently studying the causes of the 1905 Russian Revolution and need to develop an argument regarding how the causes of the event are viewed differently depending on the type of historical interpretation. I have heard of revisionist historians and post-revisionists but can anyone explain how they perceive different events. Also, what are the other types of interpretations historians use?

Answer 1

Hm. Interesting question.

Remember that an historical event, or any event involving people for that matter, can have as many different interpretations as subjects involved in it. History, as we learn it in schools, is usually written by the "victors", by those in power or in the position to validate and make their point be heard. But there are always many sides to the same event; if we heard the story as told by those who "lost", we might get some really interesting surprises.

Having established that the "official" history is usually (if not always) written by the "victors", that is, the people in power, we might then start analyzing it under different lights. In the case you mention, for example, official history would say that the 1905 Russian Revolution had several causes: the opression of the populace, the lack of basic human rights, a very harsh winter that day, famine, a growing discontent towards the Tzar and the ruling party...

... You will probably know this tale better than I do. But the key aspect to keep in mind here is, who wrote the tale you know?

And this is where revisionism comes to light. By definition, this movement is intent on "revisiting" official history, either to make it less partial to the "winners", to show a more significant role of other actors, or to change it altogether and suit it to different circumstances.

Revisionism is, in general, a rather touchy subject; remember that people like Adolf Hitler tried to re-write German history to suit it to his own views and prejudices.

So basically different historical interpretations are caused by observing events from different points of view. And these points of view can be influenced by the sources used in the research process. Even unquestionable events can be interpreted from many points of view; for example, we all know that Napoleon was defeated in Waterloo; but for some people it was due do the weather and the conditions of the terrain, while others might say that his adversary had a better strategy, or better weapons, or better luck if you like. The point here is, that the same subject can be analyzed from different perspectives and under different lights according to the sources we use in our research.

My advice here would be to try and keep an open mind when doing historical research of any kind, and always keep in mind thar history is never a one-way road. If you want to get a better understanding of any particular subject, you might consider getting different sources and see how they deal with the topic. And there is not a "true" and "false" side of History; only different ways to tell it.

Answer 2

There are as many different ways of interpreting history as there are historians. The key is to realise the difference between History (with a capital H) and history. The latter is simply the events, what happened, and the former is the way those events are interpreted by historians. It is about "agents" of history, what historians think is important in making history. Some think that history is all about class struggle (particularly relevant when studying the Russian Revolution)- these are Marxist historians. Some will look at history as being all about Great Men-usually the political leaders, foreign ministers etc. You can also look into Gender history, military history, and infinite other types. A guy called John Tosh has written extensively on this sort of thing. And he definitely explains it better than me so try his books!

Answer 3

~If you have actually read what you claim to have read, then you already know the answer. If not, read it again and pay attention. You will never find the "true facts". You will only find someone's perception of the events. Remember what Ben Franklin said ..."Revolution in the first person (ours) is always legal, but in the third person (thiers), always illegal." As to the second person (yours) that depends on whether 'you' are friend or foe. Writing history during an event will be necessarily uninformed as no one involved in a historical event will be privvy to all sides of the issues. Writing from the distance of time is likewise defective, as interpretion will be influenced by outcomes and intervening events. Knowing the background of the author is essential in properly evaluating the work as well. For instance, very few US historians refer to George Washington as a treasonous rebel or to the Sons of Liberty as terrorists, but viewing them objectively, what else could they be called. One is not a patriot if one is involved in the violent overthrow of ones rightful and legitimate government. What you need to learn to do is read, conceptualize, generalize, THINK and form your own opinions based on the best and most diverse information available, rather than to ask some schmuck like me to do your homework for you.

Answer 4

There is only one historical interpretation; factual. The true historian sees through bias and pretty much knows when someone is trying to revise history by outright lying. Take the controversy over the Turkey being in the first Thanks Giving. The revisionist, who has said there was no turkey is under fierce attack, because he has posited he own interpretation, devoid of fact. Always seek the truth or it's approximation.

Answer 5

Hi there, as true as it is that there are different types of interpretations due to personal opinion/bias of individual historians and groups, your question is actually a technical one and there are recognised approaches to History which you should be addressing if this is for an academic essay. Consider marxist history (economicaly/socially orientated), gender history (an approach based on masculinity/femininity and gender ideologies), revisionism, post revisionism, and the 'linguistic turn' - if you do a quick google search for definitions you will quickly grasp what they are all about. A question of this nature (if set for essay purposes) is intending to encourage you to show a thorough understanding of different approaches to History. To say as some people have, that it's all about fact and 'the true historian' just sticks to the facts and should ignore bias is an elementary thing to say, it doesn't really mean anything and sounds ill informed! Good luck, x

Answer 6

Historians perceive events differently because of bias. Bias may depend on the historians background or what they have already read or heard that may have fueled certain emotions towards certain topics. for instance if you were a Jewish historian, wouldn't you tell a different account of the Holocaust as opposed to a German historian? (bad example, i know, not all Germans are Nazis.) the information also depends on sources and whether the sources are accurate themselves.

Answer 7

The 2nd modification states: A nicely regulated militia, being mandatory to the secure practices of a loose state, the main appropriate of the folk to maintain and undergo hands, shall no longer be infringed. It capacity the comparable immediately because it did the day previous to this and returned in 1791 while it became into ratified. the folk of a loose State have the main appropriate to undergo hands. the folk of the loose State additionally are the militia. no longer the Reserves or the national take care of which jogs my memory...the national take care of became into an act of Congress in 1903. no longer an interpretation...I only examine it. It says what it capacity and capacity what it says. With all this being suggested i visit enable Thomas Jefferson communicate on my behalf. "The rules that forbid the donning of hands ... disarm basically people who're neither susceptible nor desperate to dedicate crimes. Can that's meant that people who've the braveness to violate the main sacred rules of humanity ... would recognize the fewer significant and arbitrary ones ... Such rules make issues worse for the assaulted and greater effective for the assailants, they serve extremely to inspire than to stay away from homicides, for an unarmed guy might nicely be attacked with greater desirable self belief than an armed guy." — Thomas Jefferson reason if the 2nd modification meant basically the army and Police, and so on. then the liberty of Speech basically capacity mass media and Freedom of religion basically capacity expert clergymen, pastors, clergymen, and so on.

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

Here is one arguement http://folk.uio.no/johannwi/homework/HIS/HIS1320/HIS1320.pdf
http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues