When you read history books or historical documents (for class or leisure) do you analyze the information based on what you believe to have logically happened, or do you believe the information without question?
Some historical information I believe to have happened due to logic and reasoning. However, most of the time I feel that information and 'facts' have been modified or created to suit certain puposes. What about you?
2007-01-25 16:02:56 · 8 answers · asked by Godpigeon 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
History books will always be written with a slant. Anyone who writes a book, be it history or otherwise, will always write from his or her view of the world. He or she cannot help it. We cannot disconnect ourselves from our the experiences that have shaped who we are. So many things play into that: culture, ethnicity, belief systems, family, community, etc, etc, etc. These are the glasses that we view the world through.
Take for example the Revolutionary War. There is no doubt that American history text books present this event in a very different way than British history text books do. In one of my history courses, it was stated that history is written by the conqueror. This together with all the social forces mentioned earlier will invariably have an effect on how history is written.
2007-01-25 16:35:16 · answer #1 · answered by Katie R 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A wise statement was made by Benjamin Franklin in 1776: "History is written by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers." The only unbiased historical writings are, sometimes, firsthand eyewitness accounts of an event written within a day or two after the event. These usually recount only what a person saw and heard. Later writers will try to analyze the whys of the event and the ramifications of it.
2007-01-26 02:35:19 · answer #2 · answered by jlptravel@sbcglobal.net 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most all histories are slanted to the political whims at the time they are written. For example the country that wins the war writes the history for that war, and they make it slanted towards themselves.
If you question the validity of some item in history, research it and find all you can about it. Never ever take just one persons or writers word in anything; be sure to back up what one writer says as compared to another. If you can come up with three different writers opinion and they are basically the same, good bet it is correct. that is my basic rule; most items I can back with five or more basically the same information.
2007-01-25 16:19:49 · answer #3 · answered by pinelake302 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read something and read the references supplied by the author. Some historians do not include references (British), but most supply a great quantity of sources to check. The thing to do is to read those sources and find sources that may contradict the authors thesis. Without such sources it could be suggested that the author ignored scholars that disagree with his or her thesis. So read critically, do not believe something because it sounds good, but rather believe it because an overwhelming collection of sources prove it to be a fact. All historians find the best facts to prove their points. The best historians find the information that contradicts their own work so that they can prove beyond a shoadow of a doubt how things happen.
2007-01-25 16:15:30 · answer #4 · answered by saxmofone 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good for you! As an historian, there is truth in the old saying " Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear". It is always the job of the true historian to ask "what is the writer's motivation for writing this?" If you understand that, then you are a long way toward a better understanding of the truth!
2007-01-25 16:10:41 · answer #5 · answered by Gary E 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When I read something, I don't make the conclusion "That IS how it happened" I say, "That is what they said". For instance they say they persecuted the Quakers because they were heretical, but maybe they were persecuting them just because they were sadistic. But the only thing we can know for sure is the reasons they said they did it. Then we can corroborate to see if the Quakers were doing things unorthodox... And basically the reason "why" is merely a point of view.
2007-01-25 16:54:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do not base your views entirely of what you believe to be true. When analyzing historyical documents try to gather a variety of sources to get a general idea of people of the time's views on events in their time period rather than a narrow viewpoint from one person's writing.
Also, try to get documents that come from people who lived during that time period.
2007-01-25 16:15:26 · answer #7 · answered by wolface6999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good for you. You re-discovered fire.
This concept is very well known in historical circles, even better in historiographical circles. Look at the work of Mark Bloch.
2007-01-25 20:46:54 · answer #8 · answered by ladybugewa 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋