What is History exercise - Essay Example

History Questions How far can historians find out what really happened in the past Historians can, to a certain extent at least, discover what "really happened" in the past. A number of variables go into the degree to which the past can be reconstructed by historians. The first is the chronological distance between the historian and the time period being analyzed. Reconstructing the history of a culture that existed 5,000 years ago is a very different prospect to analyzing that of 500 years ago, which is again different from that of 50 years. Five thousand years ago there may be many gaps in the historical record, fifty years ago there may be so much information that it is virtually impossible for a single historian to digest the material. Physical evidence from the past may provide firm evidence for what "really happened". Thus an archaeological dig of a battlefield may reveal a wealth of information about the type ammunition used, the number of dead and even the type of food that the armies were eating. However, even with a wealth of physical evidence, the historian's task is to place it in context. Thus, what does the type of food that was eaten by an army mean to the overall reality of what was occurring at a time Another difficulty with discovering "what really happened" is that the historian needs to decide from whose viewpoint are the occurrences being seen. The traditional, "great man" view of history, which tells of the happenings that occurred to Kings, Queens, Emperors, Presidents, Prime Ministers . . . . that is very different from a history of the ordinary or poor people. The latter may be virtually unaware of what is happening at the national level, while the former may ignore the plight of most of the people that they rule. So "what really happened" depends upon the point of view being taken. "Happening" is a multiple occurrence and has multiple dimensions according to the different groups and individuals being considered. In more recent history, the historian faces the challenge of having perhaps too much information. For example, a historian studying the assassination of President John F Kennedy will find hundreds of thousands of documents at his disposal. Indeed, a historian could go through a lifetime reading all the documentation and never come to an end. Thus, rather than trying to piece together the past from scattered and incomplete knowledge, the historian needs to select from among that knowledge. A degree of selection may also lead to a degree of bias as the historian is almost bound to choose those documents and sources that are of most interest to him or which support a preconceived notion regarding an event. 2. To what extent can a historian be objective A historian should at least try to be as objective as possible, but absolute objectivity is impossible. Thus the first task is to not 'judge" the historical period or figure being considered by the standards of your own time. Considering a figure such as Henry VIII through the eyes of the ethics and standards of the Twenty-First Century is both futile and debilitating to the historical process. A King (or an ordinary man) should be considered within the context of his time in order to understand what, how and why things occurred. In recent years the so called "new history" has often tried to re-interpret historical events according to the standards of today. Thus Feminist history seeks to explore the subjugation and oppression of women, gay history does the same for gay people etc. While a lot of fascinating scholarship appears within these genres of history, the actual sense of the place and time being considered often becomes lost within the ideological vigor of the historian. Such historians often seem to pride themselves on the fact that they are not being objective. To be fair, those proponents of new history would suggest that traditional historians are just as un-objective through their uncritical analysis of patriarchal, sexist, homophobic societies. The new historians claim that not to criticize is to support these supposed evils. Such a claim relies upon the presumption that the historian should pass moral judgment upon the past. A recent famous example of such "judging" is Hitler's Willing Executioner's by Daniel Goldhagen (Goldhagen, 1993). Goldhagen sets out to prove that ordinary Germans knew much more about he Holocaust than they admitted, and thus seeks to damn the whole German race. The legitimacy of his arguments are besides the point, as he is stating that he wishes to "prove" a certain argument regarding German complicity. He is not attempting to be objective, but rather to be argumentative. It is an argument that he wants to win. Of course this does not mean to suggest that historians should either strive for or even claim absolute objectivity. A historian who does not take some kind of ethical point of view towards genocide would be somewhat inhuman; but to allow natural human disgust at genocidal activities to blind the scholar to the subtleties of history is also doing a disservice. A sensible distance from the subject-matter, one which is not completely removed and yet one which is not completely involved, is the ideal. A kind of concerned objectivity is possible within a study of history, and it is this that should be aimed for. 3. Is objective knowledge of the past the primary purpose of history if not, what is Objective knowledge of the past can be seen as one of the purposes of history, but not the only one. The argument of objectivity versus subjectivity is essentially redundant as it is clear that absolute objectivity in knowledge of the past is impossible because it is a human being gathering that knowledge. Human beings have personal biases by definition. The gathering of objective evidence about the past is the start of history, but only the start. The most powerful and important task of the historian is to bring the past to life for the reader or fellow scholar. The discovery of mountainous amounts of information about the past is hardly useful unless there is some point to the information. Information without context is just a jumble of inaccessible facts. The well chosen fact juxtaposed with another, equally well-chosen fact is what makes the past spring to life, and it is this making real that is the prime achievement of a good historian. Take for example the work of Simon Schama, particularly within his famous book Citizens (Schama, 1990). A scholar can read this book and gain a bounty of previously undiscovered information, yet the educated general reader can as well, and she will find a brilliant rendition of what it was actually like to live through the revolution. Both the facts and the sense of the place/time make up history. The attempt to place one over the other in a vain valorization of objectivity over subjectivity or visa-versa is doomed to failure. A story without facts is merely a piece of fiction, but facts without a story are not history either - they are just facts. It is the seamless combinations of facts, interpretation and rendition of the past that makes up the best history. History can also provide sanguine lessons for the present time. As George Santayana put it, "those who forget the past are condemned to relive it" (Santayana, 1979). History is one of the ways in which the past is remembered, and through which the present can seek to identify patterns that may be both adopted and avoided depending upon their previous outcomes. Objective history may also seek to stop those in power who, like the Party in 1984 might seek to "change history" through merely writing down a version that they now want (Orwell, 1989). The image of Winston removing people who are no longer in favor from old newspapers, and also changing the course of the "war" that has been fought in the past is a powerful one, and should always be remembered by those who claim that history is irrelevant. Thus it can be seen that a subjective knowledge of the past is actually the aim of history. For within subjectivity comes a degree of knowledge that makes history both vital and relevant to the present day. The facts should be gathered objectively, but they should be interpreted with an eye towards relevant understanding. Again, judging the past should not be indulgent and involved with judging it according to the morality and ethics of the present. Indeed, perhaps the past should be used to be a 'judge' or at least a prism through which to regard the present. ____________________________ Works Cited Goldhagen, Daniel, 1993. Hitler's Willing Executioners. Harvard University Press, New York. Orwell, George, 1989. 1984. Penguin, London. Santayana, George, 1979. Collected Writings. UC Press, Berkeley. Schama, Simon, 1990. Citizens. Vintage, New York. -------------. 2003. A History of Britain: At the Edge of the World, 3500 BC - 1603 AD. Vintage, New York. Read More