I was studying at Hale library at good ol' Kansas State and overheard some doctoral students in history discussing different viewpoints of historical periods. What suprised me is that it seemed they were convinced there was ONE and only ONE acceptable view of historical periods.

I was wondering if you all felt the same way as they do?

My 2 cents: I think that some views have more credibility or make more sense than others. However there is something to be learned from all perspectives within reason.

Hi Hellbent 11,

History is usualy written by the Victors, at least in the first instance. I'm no expert but you often see 'history' portrayed from one side only, often things are omitted as being irrelevant when in fact they are not.

There is no correct one sided view of history in my humble opinion. It really depends on trying to get an overall picture, taking into account the politics not only of the writer but the period which is being written about.

Some countries leave out the bits that reflect them in a bad light and show only what might be seen as 'positive' history.

I think one needs to be very careful before accepting things as written because there is usually an angle attached to it, either personal or political.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers

Al

Yer, I'am with you. Pretty narrow minded for a history student to think that way.
Most of the stuff I studied in Modern History at high School, while not totally incorrect, It's wasn't totally true either. JFK IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE!

Another thing to remember is language. If you only look at work written in a particular language, you'll only see the side viewed by the speakers of that language. WW2 is a good example. You can see this in all forms of history, from military to natural. For example, for a good half a century, no one in the English-speaking world was aware of white shark attacks in the Med, because English newspapers and magazines just hadn't covered it. But the moment you searched Italian history, it was full of reports. It was a shock to many that the Med had large numbers of white sharks.

You can put my 2p along with that. History does not belong to anyone.

Education should be about teaching people how to think, not what to think. Teaching any one viewpoint is indoctrination not education. The fact that the group you overheard seemed not to be troubled by this is why 'academic' has so many negative connotations.

Academic

Quite agree with David (Spooky6) about how an anglophonic bias can exclude relevant material. As a personal example, trying to write about archaeology using only English-language texts is mad when you're dealing with Europe-wide cultures, though puzzling my way through French archaeology reports is not exactly my idea of enjoyment....

Greetings all,

David has a very valid point, if we only read English History for example we get only the English view point at that moment in time, or amended thereafter.

It's important to try and get an overview of the whole event, only that way can you make a judgement for yourself. It's very easy to have a narrow-minded view of history because it fits in well with our individual feeling about nationalism and being loyal and so on.

The more opinions you can get the better chance you have of understanding what went on. History often gets distorted to suit the moment, you see it all the time, you get part of the story but not the full story.

My advice would be to never accept, but always question, starting with a good look at who wrote what you're reading/listening too.

Cheers

Al

Ohh nooo!!!! How can anybody think that History has one singular dictatorial viewpoint!?

As a curator in our national museum, i work in the interpretation business, and this is something we get every day. How are you supposed to tell the entire national story when the past is so jaded, contorted and at times, not so celebratory? Simple: you convey the good and the bad. Nevertheless, we're talking about History in general, not museums, so ill put my History PhD hat on before my boss reads this and i get fired.



Right! Historiographically, I think we all need to get out of the mindset that a certain idea of the past is 'correct', because face it or not people, the past has gone. All we can do in the present is to string together pieces of the past (be it documents, archeological findings, buildings, artworks etc etc etc ) which have survived the scrapheap and remain in the present. From which, we construct an idea of what the past was like.

Conscious or not, our interpretation of that material depends on the rich and varied pasts, experiences, socio-economical backgrounds, etc which make us all interpret the past differently. In my curatorial team, we all differ: archaeologists, historians, anthropologists, art historians, scientists; each bringing a different interpretation and viewpoint to the fold which would not necesarily be so obvious.

My point? Is there really a one singular 'truth'? No, I dont believe so. Is there a multiple of 'thruths'? Yeah i think so: each as rich and varied as the other - PROVIDING IT IS BACKED UP WITH CREDIBLE, AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE.

The past is long gone, and is no longer tangible as such. What remains in the present is all we have, and its that rich and varied interpretation and eengaging in debate is what studying history is all about.

That, my friends, is my 2 bob. Pardon the slapped together argument, but i really need some sleep.....

Cheers,

Aaron.

2 schools of thought - facts are facts- some things are irrefutable - however much of history is based on observation and therin lies the dillema- the observer is influenced by his/her opinions. The populararity of revisionist to make the facts "fit" their particular view is far to comman. An example would be the teaching that slavery was the cause of the civil war and not discussing states rights- both have merit however since the emancipation was issued on Jan.1 1863 and the civuil war began in 1861 one could argue that states rights started the war and imacipation fueled it. As winners write the history books the more positive humanitarian view is taught.

I am in agreement. And I think Drader hit the nail on the head when he
wrote the following. I've thought the same but haven't expressed it so well.
Hopefully, I can remember this phrase below:

"Education should be about teaching people how to think, not what to
think. Teaching any one viewpoint is indoctrination not education."

When I used to speak to elementary students as a representative of the
new media, I would ask them the question. Could they tell me the
difference between knowledge (study of history, for example) and
wisdom?

As a history-student, here is my euro 0.02


For much if not all of history there is no single one correct view. However, there are views that are completely wrong, simply because they contradict fact. The rest of the views resides somehwere in the area covered between very highly unlikely and extremely plausible.

And BTW, language barriers are a severe handicap for students of history. Just as political expediency. Examples of the latter are for instance classified records, or for years the Russian records regarding WW II, which (most) Western historians were unable to use.

And as far as the language barrier goes, I guess I am lucky enough that my knowledge of French, German, English and Dutch (obviously) is good enough for reasearch purposes (at least). Arguably Latin and in the near future Greek will be added as well.
I saw it when having to write papers with my classmates, having knowledge of more langiuages opened up scores of new sources (and study went much easier) that my fellow students were unable to access (or were having HUGE dfficulty with).

John's point really sums it up for me. There are two aspects to consider with history. One aspect is the bare facts of an event. Certain facts are well known and can almost always be proven to be true or not true. (Example Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7th, 1941, and a known list of ships were destroyed.)

But when you move on to the discussion about WHY the attack took place, and HOW it was able to be so successful, that's when the fun starts.

This aspect of history deals with the motivation of people, and an objective truth there is impossible.

Any writer of history who sets out with a fixed point of view with respect to the causes, meaning and effects of events, and is determined to portray that point of view by making the "facts" fit to support his preconceived position, does himself and his eventual readers a grave disservice.

Tom

Hi,
Besides Military History, my other love is Paleontology. Like both things, new discoveries are being found everyday. In this vein, I will say that new discoveries are being made about WW2 all the time.

KGB files being opened, new photos being published and new documentation being penned.

Be that as it may, I do not believe for an instant that history is as rigid as some make it. Two or more points of view are being discussed all the time.
Going back to my original premise about History and Paleontology, there is a discussion going on whether T-Rex was a predator or scavenger. Two camps have been drawn up and the "fur is flyin'" on both sides. Same thing with history, some believe the German Military and Waffen-SS were all Nazis, and some believe only a minority were. Also, some believe that the Allies were pristine and others believe that Allied war criminals were not prosecuted because they won WW2.(Which is my belief.)
I do not have an advanced degree in History, but I read and check out all points of view. Also, can anyone ever be "correct" on all things about all people or events.

This is just my view and I do not care if someone disagrees.

Chris

Greetings,

There are lots of good and relevant points being raised here. In trying to understand the facts, I think it's also important to try and put oneself in the mind frame of the period.

By this I mean what were people of that time thinking and what was normal for that time period. It can help understand why events took place which if just viewed from a modern perspective may seem hard to understand.

We all know that the slave trade way wrong and history proved it to be so but there was a period when this was seen as perferctly good business and accepted by many educated people.

History not only gives us the dates, facts and figures of the past but is a window into the development of mans thinking, his moral and cultural progress or lack of it, that's one of the reasons I find it so interesting and relevant.

I fully agrree with the statement about teaching. It's about giving people the right pointers to think for themselves, to get them to ask relevant questions, and make their own decisions whilst being prepared to change or amend those views as and when new information may come to light. Well balanced individuals are normally people who have a broad understanding of both sides of an issue.

A half decent education is probably one of the most important things in life if not the most important. Of course learning doesn't stop when we leave school or university it's a course of study that goes on until the day we die.

Every time I think I know this or that, I actually realise just how little I do know!!!!! LOL, LOL

Cheers

Al

In view of recent thinking, shouldn't that be feathers?