Do you believe everything that you read in the history books?
From time to time I hear someone say that history is not always accurate. That the books are written by imperfect men who want to give credit to themselves. What do you think?
As an historian, one of the first lessons you learn is that history is subjective. We base ourselves on (mostly) written sources, that are in themselves imperfect. It's all about interpretation.
You must consider your source. An eyewitness to any event will be looking at it from a certain perspective. Their account is going to be coloured by their own personal beliefs, their own place in what is happening. They might even be trying to deliberately get a certain point across. The historian must be aware of this and take it into account when analysing the data available. Sometimes two different sources can state facts that directly contradict each other. It is difficult to extract the truth.
Historians, though we supposedly strive for objectivity, are really no better anyway. History is not an exact science, and we cannot claim to have absolute facts. All we can try to do is interpret the information that we have, but we too, are going to be influenced by our own experiences and even just the time we live in. Language can be a big barrier, with words and phrasings changing meaning. Morals and values change over time, and things that were normal once have become despicable to us. For example, it is very difficult to carry out an academic discussion of slavery without getting into very emotional and thus subjective territory. One of my lecturers in my undergraduate degree regularly received death threats as a result of his work in that area.
History is a discussion without end.
As a history, I know that history is not a collection of facts or a collection of events. History is the result of an effort to make sense out of the facts and events; to make sense of facts and events in terms of a narrative form.
That narrative form is not and cannot be what some like to refer to as "objective". That narrative form is subjective and its subjectivity results from many sources including but not limited to the experiences of the historian; the training of the historian; the context in which the historian has lived; the mechanisms for interpretation available to the historian.
I think what we strive for is not "objectivity", but clarity of thought and of consistency between the facts and events we examine and the interpretation that we derive from those facts and events. In addition, I think we (at least professional historians) strive for authenticity and intellectual honesty in our work; for meaningful conversation with the reader about something of interest to us both (writer and reader).
As for history books: What one reads in any book is only as "good" as its author. Some history books are better than others; some are authentic efforts; some are shams; some are deserving of respect; some are a disgrace to the profession.
by Paul Swendson 6 years ago
Do you have any interest in reading history books? If no, why not? If yes, what kinds of books?
by Mark Knowles 8 years ago
Little did I realize, but the Texas Board of Education, after managing to get irrational beliefs introduced into the science classroom, by allowing critiques of evolution by non-scientists who believe an invisible super being created the earth in 6 days to be taught along side the actual...
by Barbara Radisavljevic 4 years ago
How will the history books describe the presidency of Barark Obama in 2050?It's often not evident what the effect of a given president's actions had on the county until history later judges him in the light of what comes after he leaves office. How will historians treat Barack Obama?
by The Medicine Man 15 months ago
Why Do So Many People Believe Everything In The Bible Without Questioning it?
by Jo_Goldsmith11 5 years ago
I would like to begin this discussion with, "why do so many believe everything they hear"?I just finished reading about how Obamacare is forcing folks to have a chip installed into their bodies! This is so not true! There is no chip, folks! Just as whomever the culprit that started this...
by Paul Swendson 8 years ago
I am a community college history teacher, and I have found that it can be tricky to discuss recent historical events. It is difficult, after all, to know which recent events and trends will ultimately matter. So what do you think that future history books will discuss when covering 1990-2010?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|