Approaches to Writing History

1138 Words3 Pages

The claim is true but it has its exceptions,since both areas of knowledge contribute to understand the past in order to create the future ; evidence is the essence of both fields. History has clearly developed into an area of monumental importance. History is merely a compilation of evidence left. Historians beat history into something acceptable from mainstream values. This degradation of knowledge is also apparent in both human and natural sciences. This quote is examined and it is evident that both history and science change, first distorting the facts in order to shape it into the conventional opinion, and slowly change as society is changing. It is important to keep in mind that there are at the very least grains of truth in almost every historical account or scientific breakthrough.

History is not the past, history is constantly being updated and depends on the extent of the perspective from which it is studied. Try to imagine what it would be like to live in a society where there was absolutely no knowledge of the past. Everything that is written is based on past evidence. Differences in historical interpretations can also be influenced by contextual changes over time. It can be argued that we are able to look back on events and re-evaluate them objectively. As Reuben Abel stated,"History is far from being exclusively scientific or factual; it is also in large part creative...The historian, like the novelist, tells a story..." (174). Each historian assembles concrete sets of evidence, such as primary sources written by relevant people of the time. Each historian assembles a theory linking documents together with the events that are supposed to have occurred. I have seen first hand generations and their differences influen...

... middle of paper ...

...ally made through the process of reasoning and decision makings. Without any decisions that were made in history, none of the events would have happened to be recorded. There are different ways of reasoning; for example, in relation to history, the way Western textbooks reason the colonization of Africa and the way African textbooks reason the colonization would be different. In Western textbooks it would mostly explain how the western colonies came to Africa to civilize and help develop the country. However in African textbooks would likely explain how the westerns invaded their land and forced intensive labors upon african citizens. Most cases with this issue of reasoning to tell history and is claiming something is true because it cannot be proven wrong. It can be viewed that both countries are using double standards to excuse or support their own nations.

Open Document