reasonable interpretation of history?

Question

I have been curious as to what can define to be reasonable interpretation of a historical events? Like what gives the author of history books the authority to tell us what to read about that event? My teacher told me that it is unbias account to it but I didn't believe her. Thanks for the help

please help me since she told me over this weekend to look into it and let her know what I have found.

Best Answer gets the bonus points.

Answer 1

I am not sure which authors you are speaking of that "tell us what to read about the event?" Surely they would be quite content if you read THEIR books(s) on the event, and followed up by reading the books listed in the Bibliography.

Before you completely discount your teacher's opinion that "an unbiased account is a reasonable interpretation of history" - ask yourself why biased accounts would make more reasonable interpretations of history?

Occasionally, you will see a reasonable interpretation of history in the answers given here on Yahoo! Answers to historical questions. But most often, you will see answers that contain their fare share of bias (i.e the American Civil War, the Second World War, the war in Vietnam, anything Chinese) - if you are curious, just read the various answers and decide for yourself.

Answer 2

The question you have asked has been debated by historians and others for a long time. The examination of this question is called "historiography"...the study of how historians think about historical events.

In my opinion, it is not possible to give a completely unbiased examination or analysis of a historical event. Historians are human beings, just like the rest of us. As human beings, they bring to their research whatever biases they have acquired through the course of their lives and their studies. This inevitably leads them to be selective about 1) what information they include in their analysis, and 2) how that information is understood and interpreted.

This does not mean that historians are an unreliable source of information concerning the historical events they analyze. The best historians start by acknowledging the "facts" of a historical event, that is, those things that happened that cannot be disputed by the evidence. The "slippery slope" for historians starts at the point where they answer the question "Why?" and what they use as sources to back up their interpretations. This is the juncture where selectivity about the sources they rely on and cite reflects their individual biases.

The "authority" historians claim entitling them to tell the rest of us how to think about historical events is self-assumed. It is incumbent on the rest of us to consider their interpretations carefully, and it is through this examination that the historian's "authority" is legitimated or discredited.

The only way to know for certain, not whether but how significantly a historian allows his/her biases to influence their interpretation of an historical event is to examine the body of research they cite in their writing. This means doing one's own reading - lots of it - recognizing that all of these other sources themselves reflect the biases of their authors.

An excellent question! Thanks for asking it!

Answer 3

No. i changed into basically discussing that challenge. for instance the knighted British historian, Sir Geoffrey Hosking turned right into a Marxian historian, and he wrote such books as 'Russia and the Russians' it extremely is a huge special historic e book about Russia from historic cases to the prevailing era. He has a Marxian view yet isn't someone who i ought to easily call a Marxist. also the time period Marxist is a technique of sticking factor because Marx himself changed into no longer a Marxist...yet a socialist/communist. I once had a professor blow up at the same time as in the time of an interview I defined I had a grounded Marxian view of historic past and social sciences. He completely misinterpreted what I meant ie. I had lived in Moldova and traveled via Russia...and changed into attempting to placed across that I had an knowledge of Lev Vygotsky and different u.s. era clinicians... and their perspectives notwithstanding the stupid Ph.D from the college of Mississippi theory i changed into attacking womanhood and apple pie. for instance if one is a student and is attempting to obviously comprehend a u.s. view in psychology or economics or really some different topics...it absolutely helps to have a 'Marxian View' with a view to comprehend the context of issues. i may have a Baptist perspective, yet nonetheless be a Catholic and the opposite is likewise real. Statistically, notwithstanding, many human beings individuals that like Russia and Russian historic past and characteristic Marxian perspectives are one way or the different continuously known with suspicion after we keep on with for jobs on the CIA. LOL