History is a story that is told. It is not only the events that make history change, but the way these events are told. Make no mistake, your idea of what happened in the past is nevertheless an idea and it is subject to the time and place in which you are inserted.
There are certainly objective facts, like saying the English beat the French at Agincourt, for example.
Other times, things are more, if not entirely, subjective, like determining which nation/ culture/ ethnicity/ whatever has a "superior" history, or whether a certain individual was an evil megalomaniac or a benevolent dictator, or whether certain events, like colonization, communist revolution, etc, are good or bad in retrospect.
Too deep desu senpai. Finding an objective 'truth' in history is problematic way before you reach metaphysics and philosophy like that.
>the past is what happened >history is what historians say happened >even with every single historical source possible, a historian cannot provide an objectively 'true' account of the past (that would only be possible by literally recreating it) >historians are always influenced by ideology and therefore the sources they choose make objectivity impossible (and the influence of ideology is so inherent it is not possible to mitigate or avoid) >even primary sources themselves cannot truly be objective, since they capture only a certain frame of the past (thereby omitting other parts of the past)
Think of a photograph of a battleship listing in a battle. Now imagine that outside of that frame, the photographer could also have included a number of other ships listing, or even a studio where it was being faked. It is the job of a historian to use that photograph, compare it with other equally problematic accounts and sources (even a statistical source such as an inventory for something can omit details or be influenced by the writer), and produce a history to educate people about what happened in that past event. Objectivity is not even close to being possible.
>>39904 I used to think this in my undergard years; then I've come to realize I got it ass backwards to what really happens and has been happening all this time: the best tellers of narrative create their own school of thought to legitimise their chosen subject. The most successful ones convince a critical mass of their peers into buying their schema, thereafter elevating it into a 'school' of ideology. The primacy of the subject remain unassaulted.
>>39638 Why history has difficulty being objective: >primary sources that are propaganda, morality tales, and lies >many primary sources just didn't survive >personal biases and taboos >broader sociocultural biases and taboos >generally focuses on macro-level interactions instead of micro-level interactions >events in living memory (Holocaust, Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, McCarthy and HUAC) are extremely polarizing and are not easily re-examined
Thread replies: 20 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 69116
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.