Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Significance of reconstruction
According to “History and the Historian” by John Warren, there are several issues that have risen out from the study of history and the defining of what are the “historical truth”. Indeed, these issues are discussed critically especially in the chapter 5 of this book.
First and foremost, the definition of ‘historical truth’ itself may not actually be ‘historical’ at all. This is mainly due to the fact that what has happened in the past can never be able to be fully reconstructed in the present day in order for us to completely appreciate the past’s experience. As a matter of fact, the accounts and historical texts that we have read or studied are not what really happen in the past, it is actually what the historians perceive of the past. In the other words, all those texts are the historical reconstruction of the past from the observations and understanding of the historians themselves. This has eventually leaded to a bigger problem as different historians have different perception of the past and thus give different importance towards certain issues. For better illustration, let’s us look at contemporary Thai history subjects that are taught within the Thai high school curriculum. If one looks closely at how Thai history during the period of Sukhothai are perceived, the main focus of it revolves around the story of the kings, their dynasties and how they have ruled Siam during those time, instead of other subjects which, in my view, are equally important. The examples of such subjects are the livelihood of the Thai people during those times or the ways that they prepare and eat food in those days. Indeed, I suspected that the reasons that Thai history is designed to be taught in that way is due to the motive of the historians at...
... middle of paper ...
...of combatants in the French Revolutionary war or the diary of the soldier that fought during that time. Clearly the messages found within those texts are open to all kinds of emissions, addition and manipulation depending on the purposes of the writer at that time. As a result, it is not really the “truth” when certain ideas are extracted out of it.
Overall, it can be seen that “historical truth” is most likely not possible to be recovered by the historian due to several difficulties as stated in this paper. In my opinion, the only thing that a historian is able to provide to us is the “truth” from the perspective of the historians. Also, it is important for us to keep in mind that all the historical account can be interpreted in any way that the interpreter wants and we should be on alert and consistently judge any historical reading that we may have come across.
What is history? Many believe that history is what is read in textbooks, or what is seen on the news. If Susan Griffin were asked that question, she would probably argue that history is much more than that. It is about the minds and souls of the people who went through the historical event, not simply what happened. In her essay, Griffin incorporates stories of people from totally different backgrounds, and upbringings, including herself, all to describe their account of one time period. Each person’s history is somehow connected with the next person’s, and each story contr...
After our study of many accounts of the English Civil War and Charles I’s trial and execution, it is clear that discovering historical truth and writing a satisfying history are two very separate, difficult tasks, and that finding among many accounts a single “best” story is complex, if not impossible. In order to compare the job each historian did in explaining what’s important about this conflict, the following criteria can be helpful for identifying a satisfying history.
The study of past events have been a common practice of mankind since the verbal telling of stories by our ancestors. William Cronon, in his article “Why the Past Matters,” asserts that the remembrance of the past “keeps us in place.” Our individual memories and experiences shape how we act in our daily lives. In addition to influencing us at an individual level, our collective history binds us together as a society. Without knowing where we have been or what we have experienced, it is nearly impossible to judge progress or know which courses of action to pursue. The goal of the historian is to analyze and explain past events, of which they rarely have firsthand memory of, and apply the gained knowledge to make connections with current and future events.
Research of the past is necessary to improve society, and prevent history from resurfacing. There is a debate of whether or not history is based on pure study or if it has been altered by those who tell it. Each side of this argument is represented, William H. McNeill claims that history is subjective rather than factual. Oscar Handlin rebuts this claim by stating that history is a collection of data and evidence. History is not objective and is altered over time. Within the article, “Mythistory, or Truth, Myth, History, and Historians”, McNeill states, “ Only by leaving things out, that is , relegating them to be disregarded…” (McNeill 13). Historians will include only the significant portions of history and leave out details
To study history, the facts and information must be passed down. To do so, historians record the information in textbooks and other nonfiction works. Whether or not the historians retell facts or construct their own version of history is debatable. History can be percieved as being “constructed” by the historians due to their bias, elimination of controversy, strive for entertainment, and neglect to update the information.
“One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.”
In The Houses of History, many different schools of historical thought are presented and light in shed on what exactly it means to be those different types of historians. Not all historians think the same way or approach history from the same perspective, but some similar groups of thought have converged together and have formed the various types of historians that will be presented, such as empiricists, psychohistorians, oral historians, and gender historians. All of these groups can approach the same event or concept and look at them in an entirely different way simply due to the way the historical approach they are accustomed to views things.
John Lewis Gaddis, in his book, The Landscape of History, generates a strong argument for the historical method by bringing together the multiple standpoints in viewing history and the sciences. The issue of objective truth in history is addressed throughout Gaddis’s work. In general, historians learn to select the various events that they believe to be valid. Historians must face the fact that there is an “accurate” interpretation of the past ceases to exist because interpretation itself is based on the experience of the historian, in which people cannot observe directly (Gaddis 10). Historians can only view the past in a limited perspective, which generates subjectivity and bias, and claiming a piece of history to be “objective” is simplistic. Seeing the world in a multidimensiona...
The patterns of living that the world witnesses today are greatly influenced by history. This is because of the fact that history plays an immense role in forming one’s future; the abundant interactions socially, economically, politically, result in repercussions that can hardly be unraveled. However, this does not in anyway mean that one cannot trace today’s state of affairs back to its roots. Tracing today’s occurrences back to their origin is possible due to the fact that the agents’ (nations) origins are known.
As the first chapter in this long analytical book, chapter one serves as the foundation for the rest of the novel, with a basic premise that “history textbooks make fool out of the students.” It shows how portrayal of historical figures and events in the best light for the reputation of United States leads to biased and distorted historical education.
As a child sits through history class in the first grade, he or she learns of
The investigation references Franz Boas’ theory of historical particularism. The definition of historical particularism is:
We are all taught essentially the same things in school. We learn of the presidents and what they did and when they did it. But we know, as adults, that we did not get all the facts or even a portion of the correct facts in regards to history. In the essay, "The Historian and His Facts," Edward Hallett Carr shares a bit of insight into the people who record history and write about it. We are given a deeper understanding of historians and just what it is they do and what they know. By doing so Carr gives the reader an opportunity to question much of the history that we are exposed to and taught. The historian Barbara Tuchman says that the most common question asked of historians by the public is whether history serves a purpose and whether we can learn from the lessons of history (Tuchman 608).
History is a story told over time. It is a way of recreating the past so it can be studied in the present and re-interpreted for future generations. Since humans are the sole beneficiaries of history, it is important for us to know what the purpose of history is and how historians include their own perspective concerning historical events. The purpose and perspective of history is vital in order for individuals to realise how it would be almost impossible for us to live out our lives effectively if we had no knowledge of the past. Also, in order to gain a sound knowledge of the past, we have to understand the political, social and cultural aspects of the times we are studying.
Learning about history helps us learn about the humanities own reflection and what’s good or bad about it. This is just like a diary , people and by people I mean historians , just wrote what they saw and what seemed to cause a major change in society and we just happen to be reading it a couple of years later. I believe that historians actually wrote historical truth because it makes sense and it has been scientifically proven