History 101

[fable]

I just read a post from a friend in another forum. It's a pretty decent read:

Well, many years ago, when I was in college, the first day of class, our Soviet history professor decided to move us to another classroom. In the hall, he bumped into another professor, books and papers spilled, and the two had a heated argument. When we were relocated in our new classroom, he told us to write down what we had just witnessed, in case the other professor made a case out of it. So we did. He then read the fifteen papers aloud. We all differed in numerous items. He said, and I never forgot it, "Ladies and gentleman, that was history! Professor So and So and I staged that little brouhaha for your benefit. This only happened twenty minutes ago, and you were a witness. Yet you all differed. That, children, is history!"

Is "objectivity" possible in history? Or are attempts to recreate and understand the past doomed by the vast complexity we encounter when we attempt to deconstruct history? And if objectivity is possible, where do you find it?

[The Z]

Objectivity is somewhat possible but is not really totally possible since all humans experience some sort of bias when we look at anything. We are influenced by past events that we've experienced and we are influenced by emotions we may or may not be feeling. We are influenced by things we have been taught in school and the stuff that has been drilled into our brains as "right" or "wrong".

[Xandax]

Objectivity would be hard to find in history, in my oppinion.

That is why there is truth to the saying that "history is written by the winner" (rough danish translation, early morning here).

I think it would be hard for anybody to write completely objective, and not only that, find objective sources, to base the history upon.

And using our moral codex as a guage for what is "right or wrong" will not be objective either, cause other cultures have a different oppinion about "right and wrong". For a modern day example, check out the Isreal vs. Palenstine confilct. Both parties say they are right and the other is wrong - and even us as outsiders have a hard time to be unbiased and objective.

Subjectivity will allways influence what is written and said, imo, that is why "you" should never belive all "you" reads. And if "you" wish to study historical events and such, it would always be preferable to study more then one historical source (if possible) to get a more broad picture.

[HighLordDave]

The only things about history that are objective in history are the "facts", and I use that term loosely because what constitutes "fact" and "opinion" can be based largely on semantics rather than truth.

For instance, what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "traitor"? It all depends on who wins the war. George Washington will be remembered as a patriot, Jefferson Davis as a rebel. Yet both men led basically the same cause: an armed insurrection against an "oppressive" regime. One man won his war and the other lost his.

History, contrary to popular belief, is not simply the names and dates of events; rather, it is the study of how one event leads to another and the interpretation of "facts" to understand how subsequent events came to be.

As we study history, how we interpret the past changes because the lens we use to view the past changes. This kinetic view of history is necessary because new evidence is always being discovered which may lead to new interpretation and the further we get from an event, the easier it is to view it less emotionally.

As a social "science", history lacks the objective measurements of a discipline like chemistry or physics (and there are still plenty of academic debates in those fields, so the inability to be "objective" isn't unique to our discipline) and so its practitioners can always be faulted for bringing a bias to their work. Perspective is necessary when studying history, both in evaluating an event and evaluating someone's work on that event. It is a hard thing to do, put aside our own bias and try to understand someone else's, but without studing history, and constantly revising that history to incorporate new evidence and new interpretation, we cannot understand the events that follow.

[frogus]

An event can be observed objectively if it exists in the real world and we can experience it and verify it.

An event which happened in the past (until someone makes a time machine) does not exist anywhere in the world, and hence cannot be observed objectively, IMO.