Heather in Neverland Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I was reading a book the other day and it mentioned something about objective history and writing about history in an "objective" manner and the first thing that popped into my head was "there is no such thing." What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I was reading a book the other day and it mentioned something about objective history and writing about history in an "objective" manner and the first thing that popped into my head was "there is no such thing." What do you think? :iagree: My high school history teacher always said that history is written by the winners. I am not sure I agree 100% with her but any history will be written with a certain perspective and therefore it can't be objective. The person might not be aware of it but when you write something you have to make choices of what you include and exclude and which words you choose these all make it subjective. Now it can be more or less objective but not completely objective, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virginia Dawn Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I was reading a book the other day and it mentioned something about objective history and writing about history in an "objective" manner and the first thing that popped into my head was "there is no such thing." What do you think? No, I don't think there is such thing as objective history. It's like the parable of the 3 blind men describing an elephant. Each can only describe the part that he is able to touch. Even a sighted person can only see one side of the elephant at once. Even so, what we read does represent the experiences, education and attitude of the person who wrote it. In that way we do learn bits and pieces of the whole, and the more sides of the story we learn the better the understanding of the whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Accounts of battles are also written by the living. Think of all the dead who were a part of a battle up to the point they were killed. All their stories died with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 There maybe no perfectly objective perspective, but there is more or less objective. Some historians approach their subject ideologically ridgid, others attempt objectivity. I've found reading history from multiple perspectives helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Not necessarily--perhaps their ability to give a first-person account of their perspective died, but witnesses can provide much information, as well as what was shared by those dead persons before their deaths. It's important to share our stories as we go, isn't it, because we are all going to die one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Not necessarily--perhaps their ability to give a first-person account of their perspective died, but witnesses can provide much information, as well as what was shared by those dead persons before their deaths. It's important to share our stories as we go, isn't it, because we are all going to die one day. Yeah, sure we should all share our stories as we go but most men don't sit down in the midst of battle to share their stories. I stand by what I wrote. We lose the stories the dead when they die in battle. We don't know the details of their part in the battle. A second hand account is not the same as a first hand account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Yeah, sure we should all share our stories as we go but most men don't sit down in the midst of battle to share their stories. I stand by what I wrote. We lose the stories the dead when they die in battle. We don't know the details of their part in the battle. A second hand account is not the same as a first hand account. :iagree: We also see things differently after the event. Some things become clearer others fade. This makes humans very unreliable when telling history:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkpan Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I was reading a book the other day and it mentioned something about objective history and writing about history in an "objective" manner and the first thing that popped into my head was "there is no such thing." What do you think? My dad, a retired, college prof of Western Civ, son of an historian as well, would say, There is protocol, some historians/history are better than others, but .. ultimately every historian will write through their own filters/bias. The key is to widely read, to evaluate truer history. (man, I miss my apostrophes - broken keyboard:() Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avila Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) No. Not at all. All history is interpreted by somebody (with a bias of some kind) when it is written down, and so beyond dates and names, nothing is really objective. The best we can do is try to find corroborating evidence and several accounts that agree, and hopefully accounts from both sides of an event, and decide for ourselves what really happened. You know what else about history that really bothers me? There is no such thing as progress in history. Yes, we know things the ancients didn't and technologically, we have advanced. But they knew a lot that we don't. The one thing history really shows (especially when taught with WTM methodology) is that PEOPLE don't really progress (meaning change permanently for the better, or put to the extreme, become "more good"). War is still war, jealousy and greed still motivate, and the good and the bad are still all rolled up together. It is hard to find American history books that acknowledge this in any form at all. We are not the pinnacle of everything that has ever happened. If we are lucky, we are at the top of a curve that there will still be a bottom of some day. Those who don't know the past really are doomed to relive it. History major here, who took this very hard when she figured it out way back in college. :tongue_smilie: And I swear I am not a pessimist! I love history! I just like it in context. Edited February 28, 2009 by Asenik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Even by striving to be objective, you can ruin your objectivity. No, there are no objective history books or single sources. If you get your information from many sources it is possible to create a history that would be more objective, from your own point of view ;) Even that wouldn't be truly objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommyof4ks Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Nope. History changes as things unfold as well. I think it will be interesting to look back at what is going on today in 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova mama Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 When it comes to war, both sides believe that they are right, so there's no way they will tell the story the same way. In North Korea, what the US Government calls the "Korean Conflict" is formally known as "Fatherland Liberation War." If we could ask Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee why the Civil War was fought, we'd probably get pretty different answers. Abraham Lincoln's version is pretty much what's taught in schools (at least in the not-much-like-the-rest-of-the-South part of VA where I live). Like others have said, I think it's useful to read various accounts, both contemporaneous and retrospective, to get a complete picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.