Nevermore Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I assume that, if this is kept fairly theoretical, it won't go down the agro route. Historians have a simple duty: to tell the truth. Discuss... ...because its the essay title I'm doing and, while 1am essay writing kinda sucks, I am finding it interesting. I'm now finished with the theoretical side; I'm just interested to see if your guys' opinions differ from mine... if you care... at all . Quote The Raven Nevermore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthsiddus2 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 well the old saying goes "history often repeats itself" and if we don't learn from our past mistakes then it will come back to haunt us. like now with the world economy almost flat-lining. we knew years ago this was gonna happen but we did NOTHING. I am a firm believer in what Karma says. whatever you do has a positive effect or a negative effect on you and the people around you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Librarian Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 As someone that took history & classics in high school, I would like to think this was the case. Unfortunately this is not the simple truth. No one is without bias. Everyone has a POV. One person's truth is another person's exaggeration is another person's error is another person's lie etc. This is especially true when you consider that history is usually written by the winners. I once heard that Amon-Ra is considered the king of the Egyptian Gods because at one point a king that worshipped him defeated another that worshipped Set, God of Evil/Darkness etc. Another problem regards information that is avaliable. If you don't know the whole story the historian is in a bind. Consider the Gulf of Tolkin affair (the one that started the Vietnam War as we know it). It was only recently confirmed (by that I mean a few years or so) that it never happened. Now think of all the history books that are rendered invalid because of that fact. The other problem is that quite frankly, the truth hurts. There are some things that are better left unsaid, like the fact President Lincoln thought blacks were a inferior race, and promised he would uphold slavery when he was campaigning to become President. As I see it, the main problem with your notion is the inpracticality. The truth is rarely a constant thing. It is warped by both your POV and that of the historian past & present. I think it was Hunter Thompson who said the only thing you can objectively say are weather reports and sports results (and even then that may not be the case). Do historians have a simple duty to tell the truth? No. It would be unrealistic to expect them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjdgoldeneye Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Historians have the fundamental flaw of being human. Keep that in mind. Is "truth" simply fact presented as such, or does "truth" imply a moral element? Sure, if you murder someone with one gun and they accuse you of using another, would "telling the truth" be saying "I never shot anyone with that gun"? "The Whole Truth" requires that the historian write what is fact, but also what it means. That in turn requires that he or she imply the feelings of history and the beliefs of society as a whole regarding it. Fact will never change, but it will surely be understood differently by different people. Sure, historians should avoid suggesting personal preferences, but they, in part, need to show what the history means to those who lived it and beyond it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Two Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 The other problem is that quite frankly, the truth hurts. There are some things that are better left unsaid, like the fact President Lincoln thought blacks were a inferior race, and promised he would uphold slavery when he was campaigning to become President. And never said a word about abolition prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. The truth is that that document was a brilliant piece of politics, it turned the war in the Union's favour and didn't actually do what people think it did (it only applied to the states "in rebellion" thereby exempting Kentucky and... Mississippi(?)) A brilliant political move, but not part of any great moral crusade or agenda. ...But I digress. Historians have a duty to tell the truth to the best of their ability, but nobody can entirely detach themselves from their own prejudices and motives. One of the key skills in history is analysing sources to assess their value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackphoenix Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 As someone that took history & classics in high school, I would like to think this was the case. Unfortunately this is not the simple truth. No one is without bias. Everyone has a POV. One person's truth is another person's exaggeration is another person's error is another person's lie etc. This is especially true when you consider that history is usually written by the winners. I once heard that Amon-Ra is considered the king of the Egyptian Gods because at one point a king that worshipped him defeated another that worshipped Set, God of Evil/Darkness etc. Another problem regards information that is avaliable. If you don't know the whole story the historian is in a bind. Consider the Gulf of Tolkin affair (the one that started the Vietnam War as we know it). It was only recently confirmed (by that I mean a few years or so) that it never happened. Now think of all the history books that are rendered invalid because of that fact. The other problem is that quite frankly, the truth hurts. There are some things that are better left unsaid, like the fact President Lincoln thought blacks were a inferior race, and promised he would uphold slavery when he was campaigning to become President. As I see it, the main problem with your notion is the inpracticality. The truth is rarely a constant thing. It is warped by both your POV and that of the historian past & present. I think it was Hunter Thompson who said the only thing you can objectively say are weather reports and sports results (and even then that may not be the case). Do historians have a simple duty to tell the truth? No. It would be unrealistic to expect them to. QFT. History is constantly rewriting itself, and is challenging in itself. Ie: the argument between the validity of written history vs oral history of indigenous cultures. For example in Australia, we have what is called the 'culture/history wars' where it is heavily contested argued the history of indigenous oppression of the past, (ie: as if how many of them were slaughters makes it less bad.. lol) the argument isn't really about what happened but two sides. One argues that there was not as much brutality as put across by the other side but is really arguing about the 'defense' of the Australian character. The idea is that Australians are intrinsically good people, and to bring up a past that makes it sound like we were not, because as intrinsically good people we could not do such a horrible thing. They call those who talk about the terrible treatment of the Aboriginal as those who take a 'black armband' view of history. While 'black armband' say that the otherside has 'whitewashed' Australian history. The main problem is that human's require a narrative and that's what causes the problem. People require there to be a story rather that an line of facts (again that is objective) they want an over all theme, they want heroes and villians (it can be argued again that flows over into politics as well), rather than the mess that is the reality of human existance. Hell even archeology is about building a story from educated guesses. We also place our biases of our culture (for example 'the family, 'normal', 'hetrosexuality/homosexuality/pologmy', manners etc) on history that may or may have not been relevant at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I assume that, if this is kept fairly theoretical, it won't go down the agro route. Historians have a simple duty: to tell the truth. Discuss... ...because its the essay title I'm doing and, while 1am essay writing kinda sucks, I am finding it interesting. I'm now finished with the theoretical side; I'm just interested to see if your guys' opinions differ from mine... if you care... at all . Quote The Raven Nevermore History is written by the winners. There is no truth, only opinions and biases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prophet Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I think there's another side to this. I believe historians have a duty to relay factual evidence of what has occurred, as close to the truth as humanly possible (although not always possible, considering the human nature to skew things for whatever reason. Case in point, American text books through the 1960's, at the very least.) But I don't think that's the sole duty of a historian. Someone earlier stated the old addage "those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." Just knowing how things went the way they did doesn't help, though. And some things can't be learned through historical documents. Conjecture is necessary, to try to piece together the why of historical events. In certain cases, it's the theory of why such a thing occurred that allows people to learn. Sometimes, it's as easy as pulling the words from a journal, but sometimes, it's a debated ideal, that no one truly agrees on. But without the theories out there, in the world, no one would have a chance to even try to learn, and those same mistakes could be made over and over again. I believe it is the duty of those who have first hand knowledge (or as close to first hand as is possible through the passage of time), to not only share what they've learned, the where of the event, the how, the who, the when, but to showcase the why, the thinking that led to the Civil War in the US, that led to the Black Plague that ravaged Europe ... knowing the facts of history helps us learn, knowing the reasoning helps us grow. I think, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Librarian Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 QFT. History is constantly rewriting itself, and is challenging in itself. Ie: the argument between the validity of written history vs oral history of indigenous cultures. For example in Australia, we have what is called the 'culture/history wars' where it is heavily contested argued the history of indigenous oppression of the past, (ie: as if how many of them were slaughters makes it less bad.. lol) the argument isn't really about what happened but two sides. One argues that there was not as much brutality as put across by the other side but is really arguing about the 'defense' of the Australian character. The idea is that Australians are intrinsically good people, and to bring up a past that makes it sound like we were not, because as intrinsically good people we could not do such a horrible thing. They call those who talk about the terrible treatment of the Aboriginal as those who take a 'black armband' view of history. While 'black armband' say that the otherside has 'whitewashed' Australian history. The main problem is that human's require a narrative and that's what causes the problem. People require there to be a story rather that an line of facts (again that is objective) they want an over all theme, they want heroes and villians (it can be argued again that flows over into politics as well), rather than the mess that is the reality of human existance. Hell even archeology is about building a story from educated guesses. We also place our biases of our culture (for example 'the family, 'normal', 'hetrosexuality/homosexuality/pologmy', manners etc) on history that may or may have not been relevant at the time. I can agree with that part, and will have to remember it in my debates regarding the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristram Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 I don't think you're ever really going to get the truth. Truth requires impartiality and lack of personal bias. These things can be predicated by personal experiences and the environment they live in. History is often relevant in points of conflict, and conflict means two diverse view points. Depending on the side the historian is exposed mostly to, positively or negatively this will distort their perception. Truth is an idealistic viewpoint that requires fact and dismisses emotion, I don't think the psychology of the human mind ever truly allows any human being to filful this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted December 10, 2008 Author Share Posted December 10, 2008 Interesting comments . I've just finished the essay. I will let you all know the kinda stuff I included tomorrow... when it isn't 5:30 in the sodding morning . Quote The Raven Nevermore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Orange Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Damn, I was going to mention that all history is based on fact and fiction. And also the big flaw, history was in the past, and without trying to find the time-stimultated chromosome in which I theorise to exist in all passages of time at once, and so theoreically posses the power of time travel, historians are just trying to decipher what a dead man wrote. And what dead guys left behind. Anyone else notice this flaw? Or these chromosones??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.