Monday, January 22, 2007
Click on images to enlarg
A Re-examination of Historical Interpretations as well as Underscoring Imperfections Concerning Multifarious Presupposed Axioms and Accepted Cultural Traditions
It 's not the literal past, the "facts" of history, that shape
us, but images of the past embodied in language.
Even though most historical and contemporaneous narratives are, at the very least, partly subjective, the editorials contained herein were not designedly fashioned as a medium for expressing the views or convictions of the essayist.
Too often many contemporary discourses as well as the history we are most familiar with was reported prejudicially through emphasis on the ideas, thoughts, and feelings of a given author and not by rigidly transcribing or reflecting reality in an unbiased manner.
Regrettably, a significant amount of our chronicled experiences were also set forth as rhetorical drama to give it more appeal to impending readers. Likewise, too much of our popular history was ofttimes fragmentary, designedly focused on the acclaimed or positive side of humanity, failing to emphasize defamatory or roguish behavior, thus resulting in narratives that are incomplete as to which ideas actually caused which actions.
Finally, too many consequential people and events were minimized or ignored because of a lack of public favoritism or because they simply fell through the cracks and became victims of the idiom, the wrong place at the wrong time.
Most essayist who communicate in writing about redacted history agree that an assertive effort for objectivity should be held as essential to all journalistic expression; however, there's considerable disagreement over whether pure objectivity is possible.
Nonprofessional historiographers usually have highly instructive but
restricted resources available for research. Most have to rely on intermediary source material such as transcribed or reproduced official documents, letters, diaries, newspaper
articles, photographs etcetera. They usually find source material of this sort on the internet, at public libraries, history museums or though relevant media sources; field research is usually not an option.
In that most narratives concerning our history have numerous diverging accounts, it’s up to the revisionist to weigh all available data and make an analytical decision as to what actually occurred. The reality exists; however, that even though the author may provide extraordinary grounds for belief, in conjunction with scholarly postulation, his discourse is still only a reinterpretation of second hand (at best) information and therefore can only be construed as an opinion of the penman. The point in time the writer infuses his personal perspectives by transcribing his preference selection from all the various conflicting testimonies and vacillating points of view is when his editorial becomes, in part, subjective.
It’s, therefore, logically asserted, wholly objective history is impossible as there isn’t a specified past against which to judge rival interpretations. History is the irrational study of something that does not tangibly exist. There is no such thing as the past, except in a conceptual sense. Furthermore, as human beings we have thoughts and experiences that form a subjective lens through which we observe everything. All journalistic expression is influenced (at the very least subconsciously) by an author's previous experiences, guided by his beliefs, perceptions, values and sometimes his race, age and religion; a literary contributor perceives and communicates the past through the lenses of his culture and personal experiences. Our inquiries and observation of history change us, but it also changes history as well.
Nonetheless, this premise shouldn’t impede either the novice or the skilled history revisionist from making every effort to improve on historical objectivity. Such an endeavor can be initiated by virtue of comprehensively critiquing and analyzing all reasonably accessible archival and newly divulged historical records, testimony, statistics et cetera from which logical conclusions can be inferred.
Friedrich Nietzsche once said “there are no historical facts, only
interpretations” and because interpretations of the past are subject to change as new evidence unfolds, history has to be constantly revised to reflect these changes. Revisionist history is the re-examination of historical information, with the purposes of updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, and less biased data; it’s history revised to conform to the most recent evidence, then pragmatically scrutinized from an expectantly more impartial perspective.
Even though most historians agree revisionism is the lifeblood of historical scholarship, the abstract notion of revising history still seems to ruffle the feathers of a segment of the conservative populace. They prefer to maintain the present status quo as long as the past offers popular interpretations. Technical accuracy isn’t an issue for many; just take a look at religion. Nevertheless, contrary to unprogressive thinking, contemporary alternative views of our past are customarily closer to the truth than the traditionally accepted versions.
To their credit though, occasionally rivals of revisionism address valid problems, such as when revision is used as a tool to minimize, deny or simply ignore essential facts. Intermittently, original historical records are distorted by revisionists who use literary license to advance their own personal ideology. Unfortunately, the same scenario holds true for our proverbial conventional history. A great deal of our existing accounts of history were bestowed by contributors who had their own special agenda of shaping historical writings to enhance someone's image, perpetuate a faith or promote patriotism.
It would be nice to believe that historians recorded nothing but fully corroborated facts in an objective and unbiased fashion; however, it’s only fantasizing to imagine so. Most of our history was written for a purpose and frequently for money.
The extreme of anti-revisionism was proposed recently in the state of Florida. In 2006 the Florida Legislature became the first state to outlaw historical interpretation in public schools. In an unprecedented move, a state law was passed barring revisionist history. Ironically, the Florida law is itself revisionist history.
Aside from Florida’s unconventional reasoning, the history taught in
American schools has always been intertwined with our government’s philosophy of education in that basic history taught at elementary level is often linked with our nation’s biases, whether unabashed or inadvertent. The inherent superiority and benevolence of the United States is rarely challenged.
The promotion of Americanism is what makes this policy superficially prudent. Notwithstanding, it makes no difference how honorable the precept, it shouldn’t negate the reality that all public officials and educationists need be versed that history is not static. Our views of history are constantly changing and a continued awareness must be sustained as new discoveries cast doubt on previous knowledge.
What is History?
History is the story of the human involvement and observation of events
as they occurred. Our knowledge of history is the foundation for human accomplishment. Some people see history as nothing more than a study of the past, but it’s considerably more. It’s about why and how the past has meaning in present day society. Studying the behavior and experiences of mankind in past times and places as well as analyzing their accomplishments and failures enables us to see contemporary issues in an expanded context. Just as past childhood experiences help shape what we become as adults, the past helps shape what nations and societies become. All we truly have to face the future with are the experiences of our past.
Dismayingly, most of our history has been lost forever; there are only remnants left of our past and unfortunately, an abundance of the recorded vestiges of our documented history were conceptualized by third parties and only occasionally with the collaboration of those who experienced the actual incidents related by histories scenarists. Traditionally too many of these third party historical narratives have been accepted as constituting authoritative accounts of former times.
Fortunately though, greater numbers in our society are becoming enlightened to the reality that history is a continuing dialogue between the past and present and interpretations of the past are subject to change as more relevant information becomes available and new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There are no immutable facts about past history. The continual search for understanding the past is what makes history such an important part of our lives.
With the continued collection of new historical evidence and as more pertinent data is ascertained, revisionists frequently challenge the reliability of traditional accounts of past events. Inquiries with regard to the imperfections in our historical records become further disconcerted by virtue of significant sums of history being clouded in controversy.
An immeasurable share of history’s chronicles was authored by those in power, so much so that it inspired the cliché, history is written by the victors. It’s the winners in human conflicts who put their own spin on historic events. Those who were victorious often used their acquired authority to suppress their opponents’ versions of historical events in favor of their own propaganda. They boast their triumphs, magnify their successes, and denigrate their adversaries. Many historical records were also produced as political explanations of events designed to defend participants. Undoubtedly, large sums of these documents were skewed.
Even the testimony of eyewitness accounts can also be an obstacle in the creation of accurate historical records. A direct observer of an event can’t necessarily tell you what precisely occurred; he can only tell you what he personally perceived happened depending on his own individual point of view. There are usually as many descriptions of an incident as
there are observers. This occurs by virtue of everyone seeing with their mind as well as with the eye. No two persons perceive things in the same way because no two person's experiences, abilities, desires, values, etc., are the same. All observation is mentally processed by ones special characteristics, and the way we think. This is based upon each individual’s disposition, knowledge, experiences, acumen, interests, as well as the rest of their internal programming. Furthermore, people don’t always tell the truth, be it intentionally or unwittingly. It is impossible to determine a lie from the truth without corroborative evidence. As can be ascertained by the preceding erudition there are numerous elements influencing literary fallibility, however, one aspect seems to overshadow all others. When considering the diversity of circumstances impacting the way history was recorded, the overriding conclusion which presents itself is that the crowning element of latent historical imperfection stems from the application of influence by the writers of history.
Indisputably all historical accounts, both traditional and contemporary, are highly affected by contributing scenarists’ perspectives. In fact, one might even say that any history we read is as much a product of the historian who wrote it as of the people who actually lived the events it attempts to describe.
It's not the literal past, the "facts" of history, that shape us, but images of the past embodied in language.
________________________________________________
In the event that someone might wish to share his or her comments or add additional input as to the exactitude of the above or any issue included in this web site, please feel free to respond through the "comment” link at the end of this article or e-mail Denman Collins ( historiography101 AT yahoo .com).
“History is the lie commonly agreed upon.”
--------François-Marie Arouet (1694 –1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire, French Enlightenment writer.
“It has been said that although God cannot alter the past, historians can. It is perhaps because they can be useful to Him in this respect that He tolerates their existence.”
-------- Samuel Butler (1835-1902), British novelist
"Time is the past: the future is just the past we have not yet experienced. If there is such a thing as a future independent of experience, it can exist only in the imagination, and imagination, as soon as we are aware of it, becomes instantly part of the past. Time and history seem made for each other: mutually nourishing. Time is history’s subject-matter and history is the diet of time.”
--------Felipe Fernández-Armesto, (born 1950), British historian
"If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten; either write things worthy of reading, or do things worthy of writing."
