Why do historians sometimes draw different conclusions about the same event? (HomeWork :P)?

Question

This is an Practice question we went over it in class but i didnt seem to get it. So smart people of all america answer this question please :)

Answer 1

its becuase everyone has different opinions and pionts of view
For example if someone whose black and looks back at marther luther king they might think he was a great hero
But if a white person looks back at that they might think yeah yeah he's just some black guy who made history
Don't think im racist thats just an example

Answer 2

If want smart people to answer, you've come to the wrong place kid.
But, here's a shot at an answer. Historians deal with real world events that are incredibly complex, both in the interplay of causes for any event and in the amount a given event influenced what came after it.
This becomes magnified when the historian deals with very ancient events where most of the details are missing. It also is a problem when the history covers a large amount of material, for example all history you get in school below the post-graduate level.
So, each historian will look at the different influences on each event and try to weigh which ones are most important. This is essentially a judgment call, depending on each individuals opinion of what mattered most among the myriad details of any given event.

Answer 3

I would consider it amazing if they did not. After all, in telling a story in history, you don't just report what happened, but attempt to explain why it happened. What led up to the event, and what were the consequences of the event? Since there are usually a great many reasons for something to happen, all working for and against the event, the best interests of the people involved, the anticipated and unanticipated consequences, etc.

Also, when two things follow one another in time, it's not always easy to tell whether one caused the other. Maybe it was a direct cause, maybe it was one a several causes, maybe the two events had a common cause, or maybe they were quite unrelated except for their relationship in time.

Then, too, especially in the public events, people who are responsible often have a personal interest in distorting the facts, hiding their involvement in the event, and so on. One historian may rely on public records and mass media sources, and another have "insider" information. They may both be wrong, but wrong in different directions, or one may be right, or I suppose it's even possible that both are basically correct, but the contradiction is more form than substance.

Answer 4

Difficult question. It depends on the context though....It could be when they have the information but I am assuming it is when they have small ammounts of historic information.

They are trying to piece together a puzzle. And they only have some of the pieces. So after they put together as much as they can they have to draw a conclusion on what they believe the picture to be. The problem is that their imagination will fill in the missing pieces.

I realize that may be a little vague, but it's kind of a general idea type thing.

Answer 5

History is in the eye of the beholder and is written by the victor. Imagine asking an 18th century cotton plantation owner for his take on the times in which he lived and compare that with the testimony of one of his slaves. Although they both lived at the same time and place their views would be completely different.

Answer 6

History for the perspective of the Victor is always going to be in his favor, after all its HIS-Story ...not mine.
On the other head the people who didnt have as many guns perspective of the same event will always be difer from the Victors great stroy telling of moral victories. Check out Howards Zinns People History of the United State.

Answer 7

Some historians write their history in the clouds, others see beyond them and look at the clear blue sky. It is all a matter of perspective.

Answer 8

two accounts of the same even can differ who is remember and retelling the event. the can also differ depending on the prospective of different people. people attempt to explain why an event happened and two people have a completely different opinion and point of view on thing that have happened.

Answer 9

You will never get a room full of people to all say the ball is red rather than orange.

Its each persons perception, mind process, understanding and all of a particular thing. We don't seem to all think EXACTLY alike therefore our answers seem different depending on the angle we take of it.

The Bible and all the different religious understandings of it would be a prime example.

Answer 10

Everybody has a special interest, including historians.
For example, where one may have an interest in bones, another may have an interest in pottery.

When assessing a site or event, opinions can be coloured by the special interest, and therefore different conclusions are likely

Answer 11

I've heard often that you can't always rely on eye witness accounts. Everyone sees events as they pertain to their own background and experience. We hone in on different aspects based on what we know, what we are interested in and what we perceive or pick up on.

I watch the same movie with my mother-in-law, and because she doesn't hear well, she often gets a completely different version of what's going on in the same movie that I am sitting right there with her watching. Go figure.