Blog #27 – Is History True?
“The use of history lies in its capacity for advancing the approach to truth” – Oscar Handlin, Pulitzer-Prize winning historian
One of the biggest questions that we will encounter as amatuer historians in APUSH is how to tackle the changing nature of history. One camp emphasizes an analytical approach to history, looking at truth as objectively as possible. This camp sees truth as absolute and knowable, and that a scientific approach towards writing history is the best way to do it. Wilhelm von Humboldt explained that the historian’s job was “to present what actually happened.” The idea here is that, regardless of the time period that the reader lives in (say in 1950 or 2011), specific events occurred and people lived and did certain things. For instance, we should be able to say with certainty that the Civil War did happen.
Problems come from a historian’s bias and perspective. Attaining objectivity is the ultimate goal – examining history without looking at it from a political bias or sharing opinions on what the facts mean. Depending on an historian’s bias, for instance, he/she can argue that slavery caused the Civil War or economics or states’ rights. To be clear, historians cannot fall under the pressure of government, media, schools, or corporations to steer history to fit a certain mold or predetermined outcome. Revisionist history has been used by dictators to rewrite history that fits their needs and to reinforce their regimes.
“History will be kind to me,for I intend to write it” – Winston Churchill
The other camp feels a bit different about history. It feels that “objective” history is impossible because even when objective historians work at assembling their narrative, they have to choose facts, put them in a certain order, exclude other facts (because you can’t put them all in, can you, or are they all even relevant?), they exercise some kind of bias, no matter how slight or small. Otherwise, the history becomes a catalog of facts, almost like an encyclopedia with little to no interpretation. “In order to become a history, facts have to be put together into a pattern that is understandable and credible; and when that has been achieved, the resulting portrait of the past may become useful as well.”
Creating history, much like living, is like filtering through the multiple input of stimuli that swarm around us. Like a natural scientist, a historian searches for patterns whether they know it or not. If too many facts are included, “useless clutter” will obscure that pattern that the historian sees.
Another criticism of the objective school of history is that much of it has excluded the stories of those who had been marginalized by the march of white male history. This group has included African-American, Latino, Asian, Native-American and women’s stories. Plus, if new evidence is discovered of untold stories (say ship manifests of slave vessels or diaries of important or even average people), what should be done with those new stories? How should they be told? What if new evidence emerges after someone dies, like how a former states’ rights, pro-segregation U.S. Senator (white man) had fathered a child with an African American woman?
Your questions:
1. Which school of history – objective or revisionist – best seems to represent the truth? Why?
2. Which do you think is more important to history – making it relevant to the reader / viewer or getting the facts straight and telling it right? Can you do both? Why or why not?
Minimum of 250 words total for both answers. Due Thursday, Dec. 8 (new date).
Eli Winer
12-6-11
1. I believe that the objective history school seems to best represent the truth because they get the facts that are proven and known. But because of these important facts they might be leaving out a lot of history that they think is “useless clutter.” Also I think that the revisionist school is more accurate for the future because if new history is found, then it can be added to tell the stories and points of views of others that were, until now, unknown. It is important to know all of the points of views to a part of history to better understand how and why it might have happened for others.
2. There are certain parts of history that are facts such as dates and names, but over after so much time has passed there should probably be some unheard stories that can reshape the history that we have been taught to be “true.” In my opinion, both are important. We should get what we know as fact, but as time goes on we can make revisions based on new findings and new discoveries. History can always be viewed differently, be it by different races, ethnicities, or religions. It is important to get all stories and apply these stories of years past to our lives to help understand our future from our possibly changing past. In conclusion, you can do both the objective approach to history and the revisionist because new history can be discovered to add onto the facts and better explain them.
1.) The revisionist represents the truth. You can’t leave out facts in history because history is the truth and leaving out the truth is the same as telling a lie and lie about the past is not history it is fiction. Every little fact contributed to history and only showing the big picture leaves you with a different interpretation than if you look at history in its entirety.
2.) It is more important to get all the facts straight. People look at the past and history and make decisions based on it and if history is not right people might make wrong decisions based on the past. You can do both by focusing on the relevant parts of history but not leaving out or denying ill relevant parts. Those parts might not be a huge part of our history but they do make up our history and can’t entirely left out.
I think objective represents the truth better. This is because revisionist is constantly changed to fit other people needs or to support an idea. I think this is wrong cause if a dictator takes power he could use revisionist’s history to make a certain group of people look bad that the dictator also dislikes. This can lead to a generation of people to hate that group of people leading to racism or discrimination. While objective history is better because stays closer to the facts. Even if the historians get to choose what facts are relevant and what facts are not but they still are the actually facts so it is better.
I think it is better to get the facts straight. This is because then it allows the people learning about history to make their own conclusions and relate it to them in their own way. Also, staying true to the facts means there will be less people, groups, and governments that are able to change history to fit their needs epically if they have evil intensions. If you could do both you should definitely do both though. Making history relevant will lead more kids to get involved and learn more about are past because they are relating while with just the facts some students won’t be able to draw connections so they won’t want to learn more. Also, if you do both it will help the facts connect which might make history easier to understand then as bunch of facts in order. Making it relevant does have it problems through if its relevance is interrupted wrong by a student it might lead them to misunderstand the facts which I think it is more important to know what the facts are.
1.) The school of objective history tells the truth more than the school of revisionists because even though they have to cut off some of the facts, the points they use are solid facts. Revisionists, on the other hand, mix around their truth to “match their regime” and they use their bias to rewrite it. I think that a little truth is better than a lot of semi-truth. The untold stories of the African-American, Latino, Asian, Native-American and women is still possible to discover, while you can’t tell truth from opinions within the revisionists’ writings. As the blog said, the initial goal of writing history is to be objective—without bias, or perspectives. With objective writings, people can form their own opinions and perspectives, but they’ll know what the truthful answer is—what really happened. Critics of objective writing would only be able to share their thoughts, but wouldn’t be able to contradict anything with solid information.
2.) Whether or not the reader can relate to the history you write depends on the reader. All of the readers are different and have different stories and relate to different things. History shouldn’t be written with the purpose of making it relevant to the general reader, but to tell the truth. Anything after that can’t be controlled. People would probably be more interested and intrigued with history but the reality is that life is different now, and most people wouldn’t be able to compare themselves with the people of old history. Of course, more recent history would be more relatable, but the world is still constantly changing.
I think the objective school of history best represents the truth. I think this because if historians were not objective, then we wouldn’t really know what history was. Historians could change what happened, or just think differently. You have to stick to the facts or else history would be completely changed up. You can’t be bias towards anything, because whatever your bias is, will be history, and it would be incorrect. No historian can be bias towards anything, because if they are, then people who believe in the historian will be bias towards the same thing, and that would not be fair to what actually happened in history.
I think it is more important to get the facts straight. The facts are the facts, no twisting or bending them, and you have to say it how it is. Yes, making it relevant to the reader is important, but getting the facts is more important than anything in history. If you get the facts wrong, then all of every person’s perspective is changed toward the topic. You represent what happens, so you have to tell it how it is. But no, I do not thing you can make it both relevant to the reader, and get the facts right. In some cases, yes, depending on the reader. But you cannot make history relevant to every person, and have all the facts. You cannot change everyone’s thoughts about the truth. I think you have to make sure to say the truth, other than make it relevant to the reader, but in some cases, you can do both.
1. I think that the objective school of history best seems to represent the truth. I think this because this school goes by facts which are the truth not by what people think. The revisionist way uses other people’s opinions that may not be true and can cause harm to other people. Dictators for example, used their ideas to change how their countries think and make decisions. In turn, these ideas and opinions can hurt the people in their country and give them limited choices. Many of the revisionists are bias because they can write about something they learned before and only use that in every time they write. The objective school is not bias because they use the facts they learn to tell history truthfully. No matter what time period we are in, specific events happened and people contributed different things to those events.
2. I think getting the facts straight and telling it right is more important to history. I think you can’t do both because facts are different from opinions and you can’t use both when writing history. If you tried to use both, it would be hard because facts go by what actually happened and are written down for people to use. Opinions, on the other hand, are what people actually think and they are their own ideas. Opinions use political views and media views to try to get the truth. Facts don’t go by what people think and don’t use political views. Facts use the truth in any form.
Bradley T 3rd hour
1. Which school of history – objective or revisionist – best seems to represent the truth? Why?
I think that the school of revisionist best seems to represent the truth because, the school of revisionist tells and shows more information than the school of the objective shows. It tells the kind of bias that can be represented and how it doesn’t matter how big or small it is because, it’s still bias either way. One of the quotes talks about how history is almost like a puzzle and in order for it to make sense, you have to put it together piece by piece for it to be understandable. If there are to many facts, then some can be disregarded as ‘useless clutter” since the main ideas are really only needed in order to solve a puzzle.
The revisionist school also explains that the only job that historians have is to put the puzzle together in order for the rest of the world to understand and be able to communicate to other people about the past and how it has improved and shaped over time. A criticism against the objective school is that they disregarded the stories of those people who had been insignificant by the march of white males in history. The revisionist school made a point that historians might discover more information for the rest of the world to see and understand.
2. Which do you think is more important to history – making it relevant to the reader / viewer or getting the facts straight and telling it right? Can you do both? Why or why not?
I think that it is more important for a reader to get the facts straight and tell other people right because, if you don’t have the facts right on some information then tell other people wrong, those people who were told wrong will start to believe in something else and it might make the people do something or say something that could be completely wrong. I think that you could do both because, you can tell the person the right information and if they want to understand it even more then they can relate the information to something that might have occurred in their life. If you relate something to your life then it might be easier for you to understand.
The objective school of history is the best representation of the truth. The best representation of truth is a statement of fact. For example, that something for sure happened. The occurrence of a war, of dictators and leaders, and of other things that can be proven are the only things that can be true. Perspective is different forms of the same truth. The truth is in what actually happened and not in the interpretation of history. So the truth would be that something happened, not why or how something happened, just the fact that it did happen.
The most important thing about history is documenting what actually happened and recording the events of the past. But at the same time, each perception of what happened is equally important. The different perspectives are seen in different ways. Going deeper and interpreting history is what separates different cultures and different people that have existed throughout history. You can do both, but not both will be the truth. The recording of facts would be the truth. But perceptions and interpretations of different peoples and cultures would be opinions. Its important to record these opinions and have these different forms of truth so that each view is recorded and recognized. Two different perspectives on the same war can give the full rounded opinion about the whole war. By doing both, telling fact and having perspectives, is a way to get a well-rounded view of history. You can view history from a realistic point and from an opinionated point.
Blog #27
Question 1- which school of history- objective or revisionist- best seems to represent the truth?
Personally I would have to say that the objective school of thought would be more truthful. Even though there may be a slight impracticality in trying to be objective in all matters it is a much more sound method to obtain the truth through. I believe that although it may have the drawback of being slightly “dryer” in actuality it is much better. For example a way to make it less “dry” while still remaining objective is to make direct comparisons based purely on fact. An example of something like this would be “ even though they far outnumbered the enemy they were not predicted to win the war” versus an more revisionist conclusion of “the cowardice dogs outnumbered the _____ by far, but due to the valor and honor of our_____ those ____ were never likely to win.” So even while being objective you can still draw comparisons which do not show favor toward various factions.
Question 2- which do you think I is more important in history making relevant to the reader or getting the facts straight? I can understand why someone might want to try and add some “extra spice” to history, while sacrificing some of the facts. For it is true in a way that if history is forgotten it is bound to repeat itself. But even though lists of facts mightn’t be as enticing to the majority of people it is in fact a better course to take if our histories contain too many falsehoods and opinionated articles it becomes in sense worthless to future generations because they might have lost the first hand accounts of the knowledge and may disagree with the bias and have no way of eliminating it so to preserve our truths better throughout the future I believe the best measure to do so asides from accurate recording is the baislessness of objectiveness.
-jacob gluski
I think the school of history representing the revisionist most represents the truth. They believe that objective history isn’t possible. Putting together a narrative, choosing which facts to put in or out, and the bias, no matter how small, is not the right way to represent history.
The revisionists also believe that to make or create history, it is necessary to try and look for certain patterns, whether present or not, and only add those facts that associate with these patterns. If other facts, not related to the pattern are added, that will become useless, and will only confuse the reader who is trying to comprehend the information.
I believe the history is more important when getting the facts straight and telling it correct. No matter how bad history can be, telling it the right way is the only way it will be remembered. Bias facts and opinions only obscure the details.
I also believe that doing both, making the information relevant to the reader and getting the facts straight is possible. It depends on how you ultimately present the information, however with the right details and the right way to present the information, the history will be remembered by the reader/viewer. For example, the History Channel on TV has numerous shows that present the information in an efficient and entertaining way. Not only this channel but other channels such as AMC, with one show in particular Hell on Wheels, tells the story of the main character’s wife getting killed during the construction of the railroad between the Union pacific and the Central pacific crew.
1. I think that the objective school of history best represents the truth. In my mind history must be told straightforward and from no one person’s perspective or bias. The history must be true and concrete for all parties involved with all viewpoints taken into account. This is what the objective school of history does. History should be told the way it actually happened, not the way one party sees how it happened. Although bias does exist in every situation of history, historians should get around those bias in order to tell the absolute truth. For example, there are many opinions about why the civil war was started. Historians who are trying to write about this important topic in our history can not fall under the influence of schools, media, or the government when presenting it so that they don’t make it fit a particular and predetermined mold. With the revisionists, they would choose one of these influences or bias, and present it to fit the mold that the influence or bias wants it to be. Some dictators use revisionist history to rewrite history so as to strengthen their regime. Although objective history does sometimes get too factual and boring, it’s not filtered for one bias, it’s the straightforward truth.
2. I think that although making history relevant to the reader is important, I think that getting the facts straight and telling it right is more important. This is because if the reader can easily relate but the history is completely wrong or bias, it doesn’t matter. because you can try to make the reader like it all you want, but at that point it will be hard to keep all the facts right. I think it’s possible to do both, but it’s very hard. It’s very difficult to get that good balance of relevance to the reader and correctness.
1. The objective school of history seems to represent the truth better. This is because the objective school focuses on stating what really happened: the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unlike the revisionist school-which alters historical accounts because of government or personal biases- the objective school is not affected by any outside forces. The revisionist school is highly inaccurate because, as the name implies, it is commonly revised to fit the preferences of leaders and governments. The goal of the objective school is to state the truth in its entirety. The common belief is that there are certain facts that are inherently true and cannot be contradicted, such as the fact that something happened; where it happened; when it happened; and who it happened to. These facts must be stated accurately and without question.
2. Getting the facts of history and telling it right is more important than making it relevant to the reader/viewer. This is because, regardless of any personal or public opinions, there is only one true history which cannot be altered and must be told with as little variance as possible. It is possible, however, to tell the story of history in a way that is both accurate and easy to understand. This can be accomplished by organizing the facts in a comprehendible way; using commonplace vocabulary; and making the main points clear, then supporting them with details. There may also be a few minor details that can be left out of an explanation, if they distract too much from the main idea.
1. The best way to represent the truth is the way of telling the straight up facts from an objective point of view, so there are no false interpretations. The revisionist style might be good for a literature class but there are too many small stories that could misinterpreted as a historical event. In an ideal world, we could use narratives to teach and look at events from different regions on the spectrum. The different biases of all the people’s perspectives can get tangled and pretty soon you’ll have people picking sides. To avoid false interpretations, plain facts, events, and dates is the best way to present history. The most important part of history is the battles and the big names of historic people, not the everyday farmer and their perspectives. Sometimes, the side giving the information is a problem, but that is what everyone tends to believe. For example, The Boston Massacre in the late 1700’s happened because rowdy colonists were causing havoc in the city and one took it too far and killed a red coat. In defense one shot back at the colonists and the red coats all shot because they thought it was signaled. As a result, one of the most famously bias pictures came to print of the scene of the British angrily firing at innocent Colonists. This is a pure example on how the Colonists were revisionist in there way of telling a historical event. Because of misinterpretation and many different view points on an event, history should be objective, not revisionist.
2. I think both making it relevant to the reader and getting the facts straight and telling what really happened is important to the information sharing of history. First, to make it relevant to the reader makes them understand it more and it answers their question of who cares or why do I need to learn this stuff. It also makes it more interesting and makes the reader thirsty for more knowledge. But also, you have to present the reader with information that is correct and not falsify any information. If you do both correctly, the reader will be learning new knowledge that they haven’t gained before but they will also be interested in the topic at hand. If the research is correct and the information is relevant to what someone’s teaching, than you can provide narratives or even journals of views on different events so the reader can connect to the information and see how it might fit into their life or what they would’ve done differently. Let’s remember that the reason we teach history is so that we don’t repeat it. We don’t want another holocaust, or another Trail of Tears. Also, you can provide information about big events that took place and the main people who were in the event. This might be more factual than people’s recollections of events and in the long run is more important to the history itself. History shouldn’t be romantic or have any bias opinions to make it more relevant. It should be rational and factual but not to the point where it is dry to the reader.
-Spenser Robnett, 2nd Hour
I think that the revisionist school of history best represents the truth. It’s nearly impossible to write about an event without being bias in some way. When you have an objective person portray a historical event people are going to form opinions about their historical event no matter what. These opinions tend to help people better understand and interest the history of it. If you want to truly represent history you have to write from some sort of opinion, as long as it’s what really happened. A bias also isn’t bad, as long as you’re portraying the truth. Although the objective way is all facts, you can’t write an interesting and compelling historical event if you’re contradicting yourself the entire time. With the revisionist school of history, you can share all of the important facts you need for the event to be true and also share your opinion in it. The historical event is still one hundred percent truthful, but you also get your point across as a historian.
I think that making history relevant to the reader and getting the facts straight are both very important to history. You need history to be relevant to the reader because you need them to be interested. If you can’t interest your reader then they won’t read your historical event. But getting the facts straight is slightly more important than making history relevant. If you don’t have your facts straight then you’re portraying a false picture of history. An excellent historical event has correct facts and makes the reader feel relevant. You can do both these things if you write history in a revisionary way. Where you have an opinion on the subject but you also portray what really happened.
1. In my opinion I think that the school of objective is the best. It represents the truth the best of the two. I think this because what would of happened if historians in the past did not tell the whole truth? Then we would be getting wrong information that isn’t true. So that is why I think objective is the best. But I also don’t dislike the school of revisionist either. I just think that we need the objective history and then we can get the different views from Revisionists. I think if we have a mix of the two that that would be the best.
2. I think it is more important to tell the facts straight then making them relevant to the reader. While I think both are important overall I think people should know the true facts about history. I think though both of these can be achieved. You can make the facts relevant to the person reading or viewing it and also make the facts that that person is reading or viewing true. I think this would make everything better because people want to know what the real history is, they don’t want to know altered history or things that have been changed for them to read. Also I think getting the facts straight is important because of there are minorities that don’t really get to say their part in history, which I think is wrong and I think it should be shown because it is the truth and the key to history is telling facts that are true.
The reason for history is to inform people, though it may be very confusing to people, I feel the school of objective history. I understand that some people may have a tough time to understand all of the information and trying someway to relate all of the facts to someone is a good idea, but you can’t shape history into what you want it to be. The best way to teach someone something is to tell them the truth, especially in something as important as the history of the World or America. The only problems in the school of objective history are bias and perspective from a historian. This could affect reaching the goal of perfect and complete objectivity. For all we know, to help students understand something, they could say the War of 1812 was caused by terrorists in generations ahead or whatever they need to do to help students understand the subject. All in all, I think the best way to teach a subject as delicate as history is to get straight to the point with an objective stance.
When teaching, I think, obviously as spoken in the last paragraph, that telling the facts straight up and telling it right is much more important then trying to relate it to the reader. In some cases, I believe it is possible to tell the facts straight up and relate it to the reader. It depends the readers situations and background. There could be a very odd coincidence, but the odds are slim to none. Though relating to the reader could be very helpful in some situations, it is much more important to tell the facts straight up.
-Jesse Yaker
1. I believe that the objective school of history is the one with the higher truth value. This is because the objectives gave you the facts and told you “what actually happened”. Although sometimes the objectives dropped some of the facts, they only did so to not waste time throwing in “useless clutter”, they just gave you the facts and points that needed to be known, so that you knew that the event took place. Whereas the revisionists would write down the history in the way that best suited them. The way they saw things was that there was room for interpretation and bias. For instance, if a certain group lost a fight, then they might record the history in a way that makes the group that they lost to look bad, just because they are mad that they lost. This isn’t to say that the objectives can’t have different interpretations; you might think that something happened, but you still know what the actual truth is.
2. I think that it is first and foremost important to get the facts straight and to tell it right. If you have to alter the truth just to relate it to someone than that is not good. You want to stick to what actually happened. But if it is possible to both keep the facts straight, and make it relevant to the reader then go for it. As long as you are telling the truth, then it might be easier for the reader if you do find a way to make it relevant to them.
Question 1-The school of history that seems to best represent the truth is revisionist history. I feel that this is most truthful because if the historian has very bias views they can influence how people feel about history and incorrectly record events based on their ideals. If the straight facts are given the reader can interpret them in a way that relates to themselves and their life. Additionally, if a historian does not include events that they feel are insignificant, a whole party can be left unrepresented and facts left skewed. The reader should be able to sort through what they feel is important in history without someone pre-editing it for them. Everyone’s views should be represented so that no one is left out of history, and facts should always be written about every party present in the historical event, even if the historian finds their views unimportant. In revisionist history facts cannot be misconstrued for selfish use (a dictator). If an individual or a group attempts to modify and interpret history in a manner that could cause harm to others, they can be proven wrong easily.
Question 2- I believe that it is more important in history for the facts to be correct. I feel that this is essential because if the facts have been influenced they can be easily misused. If history is open to interpretation by the historian they can make wrongs seem right and misrepresent different groups without difficulty. The reader should be able to interpret the facts as they please, and make it relatable to them without historians incorrectly recording history to make it applicable to certain groups that they find important. I feel that it is nearly impossible to record history in a way that is totally relatable to the reader, while presenting them with completely unmodified facts. Different groups will always feel left out in some parts of history and history should not be modified to accommodate these people.
The Objective school of history appears to represent the truth. It presents the facts, dates, events and people as they are. By eliminating bias the facts are presented as they happened. With solid facts you don’t have to worry about opinions changing the accuracy. For you to have the truth you have to know what actually happened. The Revisionists, using opinions can change or influence people’s ways of viewing history. Although the information, when presented objectively, may not be as exciting to read provides its readers with proven information that will not change due to opinions. Facts are facts no matter how you put it; interpretations can be altered and objectified. By using the facts verses opinions you will have the truth about history.
It is important to get the facts straight in history. This way when people go to learn about history they can get the unbiased viewpoint, which allows for them to form their own opinions and have a full understanding on what happened. History should present the truth; although it is important recognize stories and diaries found from people. The stories told present interesting information on people from the past’s viewpoints and the way they lived. It helps give people a better understanding of what things were like. You can recognize the stories told by others but for history to be accurate you can’t let those stories get in the way of presenting what really happened. The best way to get the truth is by viewing the facts, the truth is essential to create a full understanding of the past.
The first school of history, Objectivists, seems to represent the truth of the facts, while the second school of history, Revisionists, seems to represent the truth of how the facts are represented. The Objectivists ignore bias, and attempt to present facts in a scientific way, while the Revisionists point out that this cannot be done. The Revisionists embrace their biases, but the Objectivists always try and look past a historian’s bias or perspective. The Objectivists focus mainly on the big picture, the great men who did great things. The Revisionists choose to focus more on the “little guy”. They attempted to uncover who was really behind the great men that were behind the great events told by the Objectivists. To the Revisionists, the “little guy” included the people whose stories were not being told: African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native-Americans, and women. Basically this included everyone but the white males whose stories are so often told. By doing this, the Revisionists provide a more complete, and therefore more correct story. The Objectivists felt that historians should not be persuaded by outside forces such as government, school, media, or other corporations to arrange history to have a specified outcome. Both have their faults, but it is arguable that either the Revisionists or the Objectivists represent the truth.
It is more important to get the facts straight and tell history correctly because the objective of history is not to entertain, rather to tell the truth. If historians put making history relevant to the reader/viewer over getting the facts straight and telling it right, history would be altered and it would no longer be reality. If history is altered, it is no longer history. It is possible to both make history relevant to the reader/viewer and get the facts straight and tell it right. This is possible because history often repeats itself and therefore something that is relevant to the reader may be related to something that happened in the past, and as long as all of the events of that event are included correctly, it would be possible to do both.
1. In history, I think that both objective and revisionist ideas and perspectives have different characteristics of History that either is currently or should be in History today. In objective history, there should be truth to the history, but the truth can be in different ways. For example, the idea of the Civil War can come from different aspects, the Union and Confederacy. The Confederacy can say something about the Civil War, but the Union side could say something about the same thing, just in a totally different way. This all has something to do with the perspectives, morals, values, and cultures of the different sides to history. In a revisionist side of the story, most of the history told in this perspective is told from bias and culture. Most, if not all, of our history is told from a strong bias. For example, we believe that the Declaration of Independence was one of the greatest things in American History. But when you are in Britain, they strongly disbelieve in the Declaration of Independence. This aspect strongly changes the TRUTH or RELEVANCE of the story. Overall, I think that the objective side of history seems to be more useful when it comes to understanding history.
2. I think that getting the facts straight to tell the outcome of history is the most important part in explaining history. I believe that trying to make history sound either cool or understandable should be after making the facts real. History is not supposed to be all about making sense; I don’t think that that aspect should be apart in finding truth of the story. I believe that history needs to be told the way it happened and getting the facts straight. I do think that if you do it right, you can find the truth in history, and still make it sound understandable and enjoyable to the reader. But putting forth effort in trying to make the history seem understandable shouldn’t be the number one aspect in History. It should be getting the facts straight and finding the truth in the history.
1. Which school of history – objective or revisionist – best seems to represent the truth? Why?
The Objective idea to the truth seems like the “more truthful” option, but, the Revisionist truth can come to conclusions that the objective couldn’t come to because they would be sifting through too much information to come to this conclusion. Yet, at the same time the objective idea to the concept of “Truth” is not only tedious to teach and learn but nearly impossible to fully achieve. No one can say that have no biases or opinions of anything because the very words they choose to say that are their own choice of words. Revisionist Truth may be the more popular choice because of its simplicity, but Objective Truth is truly the “more truthful” of the two.
2. Which do you think is more important to history – making it relevant to the reader / viewer or getting the facts straight and telling it right? Can you do both? Why or why not?
3.
To be honest, in terms of whether or not making the history important to the reader, or getting the facts right, is more important to history, is it too much to ask for both?
History’s main goal is to preserve our humanity, to remember our past and to learn so we can progress into the future with the knowledge of what works and what doesn’t. Would you rather have a nation that thinks of our history as a bunch of places and dates to remember? Or would you rather the future generations be completely engrossed in history when they believe that Abraham Lincoln was the first King of America? Both correctness and intriguing ability are necessary when it comes to history. Both can be achieved, teachers have been able to do it for a long time, you have to relate it to the students, you must tell it to them in their perspective, so that they can realize how truly incredible these accomplishments were, when they have mostly grown to take them for granted.
-Alec Barnes
1. Personally I believe that the objective school of thought best represents the truth. Despite the objective school of thought being maybe a little harder to read than the revisionist school of thought, it is more factual. Many revisionists’ think that by being objective, you are being biased towards one group of people or another. This may be truthful in a sense, but without bias history would not exist, because often times people who came out on top would write history to better suit themselves. So basically what historians have to work with are things that are naturally biased, and in spite of this they do a good job of making their work seem as unbiased as possible. They may have to leave out a bit of information, but its just small things that would probably not be considered important. Also, if revisionists’ history is constantly changing, then there is the constant threat of facts getting twisted in order for someone or a group of people to get people to believe a certain thing. Based on all the evidence presented in the article it is fairly clear, that while objective history may be boring, and a tiny bit biased it is by far the more factual of the two..
2. It is understandable why a reader might want history to be relevant to him/her in exchange for a few facts, but in all truthfulness I believe that this is completely inappropriate. Without having the real facts how can we really believe what we are reading, and in years to come if this continues then eventually there will be no real facts. So, in order to prevent this from happening the only way to go about history in my opinion will be to take down accurate facts, and to prevent bias from being involved.
1) The school of revisionist represents the truth because; the school states and shows more information then the school of the objective. Wilhelm von Humboldt explained that the historian’s job was “to present what actually happened.” Also Like a natural scientist, a historian searches for patterns whether they know it or not. If too many facts are included, “useless clutter” will obscure that pattern that the historian sees
2) I really think that you always need to get your facts strait. On the other hand it would be both because you also need to make that information relevant to your reader. You want that reader to be interested and to be able to relate to something that may have happened to them. I agree that history is boring at a point, that’s when you make your topic interesting by asking students “Has that situation ever happened to you?” The first thing to do when learning/ teaching History is to always get your facts strait, once you do that you try your best to make that information as relevant to the reader as possible.
I think that the school of history that seems to represent the truth the best seems to be the revisionist school of thought. I think this because the objective school of history was mostly white men who wrote about their conquests and successes. These successes were not always true and these white males left out all of the other history that happened such as the other minorities accomplishments and conquests, I think this is mostly because history is written by the winners of wars and white Europeans have won most of their wars against other minorities and smaller countries that have fought them. The revisionists tell what really happened and don’t leave out details just because it had to do with another race or country that defeated them.
I think that the most important thing in telling history is getting the facts straight because you shouldn’t have to twist the facts and truth to get the history to appeal to a viewer. This is because if history is skewed then future leaders and governments might make the same mistakes as people have in the past because someone decided to leave that part out because it wasn’t appealing to the reader. History is there to teach us about our past and show us the mistakes we have made and how to not repeat these mistakes. History is meant not to be repeated and how can we know if we are repeating previous mistakes if we do not know if we have ever made them. I believe that it is very hard to both tell the full truth and making it relevant to the reader because to make history relevant to a reader you have to only talk about that person’s history and things and events that would have affected them closely.
I believe the revisionist’s best represent the truth. Every historian has to have a slight bit of bias no matter what because without one, history would not only be boring but it would be hard to follow and there wouldn’t be anything to argue about. For example, if a historian was talking about the Holocaust with other people, obviously you could just state solid facts about the Holocaust (objective) but you wouldn’t really get anywhere without discussing it. When you discuss it you can express your own feelings about the Holocaust and how the Jews were treated by relating it to how you think you might feel if you were in that situation. Continuing with that example, when you express your feelings about the topic you can say why you feel it was either cruel or just. Also, it makes easier for the reader to relate to the topic and really understand the history and how it relates to current situations. Everyone has their own opinions depending on how they were brought up. Everyone has different feelings about different situations and can argue different things and when all these opinions are brought together they can make one great story/discussion about a certain topic.
I think both are equally important and I think both can be done. If the facts aren’t straight then the story has no relation to the historical reference and therefore there’s no point. Also, you deny the next generations the gift of learning the truth about these historical events, while if you only make it straight facts not only is that boring to read but the reader can’t relate to it and may not be able to fully grasp the concept of the history. Therefore, if you find the perfect blend between factual and interesting not only do you have something the reader can relate to, but also they may actually find it appealing and want to learn more.
1. Objective history will represent the truth better due to the lack of interpretation. Since it is just a compilation of many facts it is the ideal form of history for finding the truths in history. This is not always good because history cannot be told just thru a list of articles. Revisionist history interprets all of the data given and gives an interpreted reason of a certain event such as slavery. Objective history would mention that slavery was a terrible series of events that changed our country. Revisionists would interpret the data multiple ways. Some would see Slavery as a terrible event and other could say that it was a series of events that stretched our countries economy and helped to forge a new culture in our society.
2. History should be both relevant to the reader and to have the facts straight. The facts can be legitimate but can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example During the Armenian Genocide the Turkish people said that they killed a certain number of people and the Armenians agreed but to the Turks it seemed modest but to the Armenians it was a horrible tragedy. History is best told from a third party. This will minimize the bias of the information and the way it is presented. This can keep the information Relevant and getting the facts straight. In certain instances it is more important to appeal to the reader rather than the facts. This would hold true if a dictator wanted to convince his people that they are a superior world power rather than a struggling third world country. For the majority of history it is best told by the third party so that the information is correct and there is little to none bias in information.
1. The school of history that best seems to represent the truth is the school of objective. Although the school of revisionists wrote what they believed was the truth, their perspective was based off of their bias opinions and prejudices against the opposing people. The truth is the whole, actual story including all of the minor details supported by evidence. The school of objective recorded historical events as they happened, leaving out personal viewpoints and beliefs. The purpose of this was to get the facts straight, tell them as they were, and let people interpret the events for themselves without the influence of others. However, the revisionist’s purpose was to persuade others to believe what they did by reevaluating history in their best interest. Revisionists are strongly influenced by nationalism, culture, ideology, and political preferences, which are all reflected in their telling of history. Their preconceived notions haze the reality of the situation. If history was written by revisionists, there would be no definite truth. In my opinion, the school of objective definitely seems to represent the truth best.
2. I think that getting the facts straight and telling the truth is more important to history than making it relevant to the reader. However, I also think that history, no matter what, is always relevant to the reader because it shaped our country and who we are today, for better or worse. I think making history relevant to the reader is not as important because if you change the facts, no one will know the truth. And we can learn from the truth. History should be written objectively so that people are rightfully educated about the past.
1. I personally believe the objective school of history seems to best represent the truth because the acts they get are all proven to be true. They believe that historians should not be falling under the pressure of the government, media, schools or even corporations to steer history to be a way somebody wants it to be. Unlike, the Objectives, the Revisionists changed and manipulated history to match the ideas they had and/or the want they want it to be. History can’t be different to every single person just because they have different wants. History is fact and reason, not opinion. You have stay with the facts and not your personal bias or else that bias can switch history in serious ways.
2. I think that getting the facts straight and telling it right is much more important to history than making it relevant to the reader or viewer because if they don’t have all the correct information, they could be teaching the students, readers or viewers the wrong stuff. Like important dates and times or events in history can’t just be incorrect to teach kids around the world. The facts have to be correct before anyone can try to make those facts relevant to students, readers or viewers. If the facts were incorrect, but the reader was able to understand it better, i If you could do both, you really should try to do both. Making history more relevant will made more kids want to get involved and learn about the past.
Blog #27
Question 1- which school of history- objective or revisionist- best seems to represent the truth?
I think that the school of revisionist best seems to represent the truth because, the school of revisionist tells and shows more information than the school of the objective. The reasons why I believe this is no matter how history was written there are still bias’s views hidden in each and every detail. For example we all know the slavery took place in America but do we don’t understand the African American views on America’s poor decisions. I have to also agree with objective’s school considering certain wars really happened and that Columbus came to America.
2. Which do you think is more important to history – making it relevant to the reader / viewer or getting the facts straight and telling it right? Can you do both? Why or why not?
I feel like both are important to get the facts straight and make it relevant because there is only at one point and place where an event took place if you took place. Sprinkling lies into history is something humans have tone for a very long time. We should get what we know as fact, as time goes on we can make revisions based on new findings and new discoveries. History can always be viewed differently, be it by different races, ethnicities, or religions. Based on your group or tribe history may be changed into what you people think how certain events happen.
In regards to question one, I believe that the revisionist school of history seems better to represent the truth. This is because the authors of the history books, the narrators of the history documentaries, and everyone else involved in similar activities, all find the statements and ideas they believe are clear, precise, and true. I believe that they have a better understanding and a clearer, less bias idea of what really happened. Although, there is the bad side of the spectrum for this idea too. Dictators could use it to reinforce their regimes (as said above). According to the Jewish Virtual Library, on the topic of revisionists throughout history, they state, “Holocaust denial [was] a propaganda movement active in the United States, Canada and Western Europe which seeks to deny the reality of the Nazi regime’s systematic mass murder of 6 million Jews in Europe during World War II.” Addressing question two, I think that it is much more important to “get the facts straight” and tell history right. As a personal opinion, I think it is nearly impossible to make both history relevant and tell the truth because of the following reasons. First, even if the facts were straight, there will always be someone to sway it, the government included. Take the J. Edgar Hoover, a past FBI director (whose life was recently made into a fantastic movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio), for instance. J. Edgar Hoover lied and began to change history because he knew information on various important people. Because of his influence over the president at the time or the stories he created about himself (like how he arrested John Dillinger – expect he didn’t), J. Edgar Hoover was able to corrupt history. If people were allowed/did this all the time, history would be muddled and unclear. Second, the reader/viewer may read and understand the facts, but that doesn’t mean he/she has to accept them. If an individual was raised to believe that slavery and racism is morally correct, then they will object to another’s opinion that slavery is morally wrong. From that point, the first individual’s own interpretation of events and upbringing could cloud their judgment or make them think “No, history is wrong; I’m right.” Thirdly, in order to make a metaphor, history could be like a tug-of-war. If a long ago event was up for discussion, and there are two sources supporting opposite claims, then who decides which source is the truth? There will always be bias in history as well as the people who choose to taint history itself.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html
1. To me, the revisionist school of history seems to best represent the truth. An objective historian will only give the facts- you will get little to no bias from reading that history. However, if you were to discuss the history you read with a group, people from that group will form different opinions about it, no matter how hard you try because everybody had opinions since they come from different backgrounds and cultures. A revisionist, on the other hand, gives you the history with a bias already. If you were to read about history from a revisionist point of view, you would have read the information from one point of view, but at the same time have the option to form your own opinion, or look at the information from the other side.
2. I think it is most important in history to get the facts straight and tell it right. While it is important to make history relevant to the reader, doing that requires a bias, which can often get in the way of the facts. For example, some people claim that the Holocaust in WW2 never happened, because of how they feel about the Jewish people and the Nazi party. They may be making it relevant to whoever might be reading that, but the facts are not straight, which is something necessary for the correct telling of history. I do, however, think you can do both. If you were to talk about the Holocaust as something that actually happened with correct dates and people, it would be perfectly acceptable to voice your opinion about the subject, or make it relevant to whoever is learning about that subject. History may not always be told with complete truth, but it is important to stick to the facts and not make things up. It is said that history often repeats itself, and for us to survive as a country, it is essential that know the facts so we can learn from mistakes in the past to prevent things (like the Holocaust) from happening again.
1.Which school of history – objective or revisionist – best seems to represent the truth? Why?
In my opinion the objective school of history is able to represent the truth better. Even though small facts might be left out occasionally it does not take away from the big picture. Because the objective is straightforward facts there is no room for revisions or alterations made by people to fit their needs or wants. Even though this form of history does not leave much open to interpretation it gives the true facts. I think that is important because if someone has rewritten history in his or her favor there is no way of knowing the truth. And there is no point in learning false history. Although I do not agree with the objective way of conveying history I do think that it is able to present the truth in its entirety.
2.Which do you think is more important to history – making it relevant to the reader / viewer or getting the facts straight and telling it right? Can you do both? Why or why not?
I think that both sides have important and useful traits that help write history. The objective is able to deliver straightforward and true facts. Revisionists are able to deliver facts that can be looked at from different points of view. Facts can also be discovered and added and revised over time, which can be useful for future readers, and can help keep creating history. Even though the revisionist school of history has its faults I think that it is more important to keeping history alive and relevant. For me history has never been interesting to me because it seems like just a bunch of dates and times, but being able to see a situation in history from multiple viewpoints makes it more interesting. What once was just a jumble of facts and dates is now a story that I can understand and explore. I think that people are also made to think more when it is from a revisionist view because it is not someone telling them “this is what happened, how it happened end of story”. When information isn’t presented in a matter of fact form, people are able to think and create their own ideas and opinions about things, which makes history interesting and leads to a higher much more productive form of learning.
1.
The objective form of history seems to represent the facts and the truth of events much more than revisionist. Revisionist forms of history restate what the writer felt and just restate what that person wants to hear. Which leaves an awful lot of gray area? The writer may exclude any story or event that makes the writer or the group the writer belongs to look bad.
Although in Objective Form when bare facts are stated and no other opinions are stated, it leaves a bias of what if the writer left out facts. There would be no bias or indiscrepincies but, there is a very large chance that facts the writer wants to leave out will be. Thus supposable creating an even bigger bias, leaving out events, dates or facts. Which would in the end be a form of revisionist because people opinions or bias may not be in words but, would be entirely left out
Such as Japanese soldiers mistreating, killing, and abusing Allied soldiers in POW camps during WWII. Then, never mentioning it in any textbooks then when asked or confronted about it act as if it was no big deal or turning the blame onto the Allied Side saying that the Japanese were provocted into doing these things. All in all I believe that Revisionist forms of history leaves too much gray area and leaves a potential bias and it will cause history to be left out and the be used out of context.
In the end I must say that objective form of history would be better because you would not have to get caught up in the bias or the opinions of the writers and the reader would not be swayed for ethier cause.
2.
I think that getting the facts correct is much more important than making history relevant to the reader. Often when you say make the writing relevant to the reader than you put the publication into a potential to bias. Swaying readers one way and making the opposing side sound bad. Where if the writer was writing in a neutral standpoint you may have not thought way. I do not believe that this is nesassary. If your job is to sway someone one way or another then, great go ahead. But, often that is not the job of textbooks and the likes of historical publications. So I do believe that history should be writing in a neutral stand point to allow the reader to make his or her individual decision on how they feel about the subject. Brainwashing someone to believe a group of people are terrible and they only attacked bad people in there minds. But, in another persons perspective they may have been a good person. So instead in writing it should be described what ‘that person’ was like. Then, leave it up to the reader for interpretation and not frame anyone for any good or bad. Let the reader distinguish and determine he or she is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
1)The school of Objective History seems to represent the truth because unlike revisionist, Objective history is not written by someone who is trying to change or tweak what really happened because revisionist history was used by dictators and the bad people. Although objective history is based on bias it is not completely changing the story. For example the Indian killed the cow is the story but the the objective Historian says the cow was merciously murdered by the cruel Indian.
2)I think that making telling history’s facts straight and telling the story right is better than making the history relevant to the reader. I think this because when you tell history’s facts right and telling the story straight you will get the point of the story across to everybody. Unlike when you try to make the story relevant to the reader in this instance you might get the point of the story across to maybe only some readers and other readers still might not be able to comprehend because it’s not relevant to them. I think that on a rare occasion you will be able to make the history relevant to the reader and get the facts straight and tell history right because I think when you make the story relevant to the reader you end up putting bias into the history and end up telling history like a revisionist.
In my opinion, the revisionist school of history best seems to represent the truth, as opposed to the objective school of history. Although the objective school of history displays strictly facts, and by definition facts are true, those facts had to have been rooted through and edited to eliminate the “useless clutter” in history. When historians eliminated this “useless clutter” they could have potentially eliminated different sides of an issue in history, or different, more obscure ways of interpreting events in the past. On the other hand, the revisionist school of history allows for any event that occurred in the past to be analyzed and interpreted, and also allows historians to add their own viewpoints to history, and make alterations to it (if something new was discovered). In the revisionist camp, history is displayed from all sides and comes from different people and ideas. In revisionist history, all of these concepts are displayed—whether they came from a common man or a king, whether they are biased or objective, and whether they are truth and urban legend. By doing this, students, teachers, and explorers of history are able to infer their own truth of history. Objective history may display cold facts, but revisionist history gives not only facts, but also the ideas that support them. History is what you make of it.
My previous answer is all about giving readers the ideas to interpret and connect their own history, but I think that getting facts straight and accurately teaching history is more important to history itself than making history relevant to the reader is. I think this because when the reader is solid in what actually happened—and has the basics down—they are able to interpret history for themselves, and therefore find a relevant connection to something they’ve known or experienced. If a teacher tries to connect a student to history without making sure that the student is solid on that history, the student is liable to connect his or her learnings with something that may not be relevant to what there are studying. Although I think that telling history correctly is more important, I also think that it is possible to both get the facts straight and make those facts relevant to the reader. This is possible because a teacher is capable of explaining what happened to students in the most historically correct way, and then rephrasing it into something more “friendly” to the reader or student. When the facts are present first, then a relevant connection to the reader is established– whether or not the connection is through rephrasing the history or juxtaposing it with something current—history is learned accurately and memorably.
1.) Objective history best seems to represent the truth because a historian who is putting together
the facts to come to an educated, and well thought out, conclusion, has left all bias or political ideas or theories at the door. Though, when it comes to history, we will never be 100% sure about the exact reasoning or stage of events that have occurred in the past, but objective history tries to get to the truth. People often say there’s always three stories, mine yours and the truth, and that is because each story will have bias opinion, sugar-coating their wrongs, and maybe exaggerating others faults. In objective history you need to disregard these ideals and get to the bottom of history, all the while disregarding facts that seem to be of unimportance, so you can get to the bottom line, what really happened.
Though, on the other hand, Revisionist history can represent history as well because bias opinions will come through, showing the overall opinion of an era, especially when it comes to reenacting history in movies, or using an old newspaper article from a specific time period. Like a newspaper article from the Civil War written from a supporter of the Confederate army, will obviously support and Confederate army decisions, and disregarding any of their faults. Even though what this author wrote about may not be the truth, a Revisionist historian could use this article to express the overall emotion and feeling during the time period of the Civil War.
2.) I think that when it comes to history it is more important to have exact facts that are correct instead of just having more interesting “facts” or maybe versions of the truth so you can hold the reader/viewers interest. Having facts is more important because if we do not actually learn the correct facts, we may never actually do so. For example, if my teacher told me a “true story,” such as how some people think certain presidents were actually planned to be murdered by the government, no one knows this for sure, but it sure is a more interesting story than the real thing. So my brain only remembers this story for the rest of my life and now I become a Social Studies teacher and teach my whole class this and they all get it wrong too, and the cycle goes so on and so forth.
I think it is possible to teach things from the more exaggerated and interesting version along with the actual version, though I think there needs to be more emphasis on the actual factual story. I believe there needs to be more emphasis on the actual correct story because that is the truth and you do not want students getting the truth story mixed up with the other more interesting version. I think that a more interesting story can be used to hold students attention in class, but I do not think it should not be the main focus of the class.
The school of history that best seems to represent the truth is the one that has analytical approach to history. This has the best representation of the truth because it is not bias, or has the best attempt at being bias, therefore giving the most accurate retelling of what actually happened without exaggerating any details. Exaggerating details by having an opinion weaved into the retelling of the event could cause the audience to form opinions based on a bias telling of information. Being straightforward about the facts is the best way to be accurate and leaves room for the audience to form their own opinions.
Getting the facts straight and telling it right is more important to history. I feel this way because if history is told from a certain view, parts of the stories and events can be excluded, changing how things will turn out in the future. If an event in history is told from a certain perspective including their opinions the audience could and probably would end up forming opinions based on information that stretches the truth. that However, making history relevant to the reader and telling it right can both be done. I feel this way because giving the reader straight facts and a more recent event to compare it do can be done without being bias or interpreted in a certain way, as long as the comparison is backed up with examples and evidence. If the comparison is done correctly it can be relevant to the reader while remaining straightforward about what actually happened.
1. 1.The objective point of view seems to represent the truth. This view get the facts more precise and keeps it straight. They try and remove all the opinions from one side or the other and keep it how it actually occurred. With this way you find the exact perception once you find the facts. As you organize the facts together it helps lead you to the one true view. The revisionist change the history to make it sound what will appeal more to certain people, but if they do that then it is not history anymore. They would now be putting in opinion not fact. A person’s opinion romanticizes something compared to how it actually occurred. Thus making the objective seem the proper way in which history should be recorded.
2. 2. In my opinion getting the facts straight is more important than making it more relevant to the reader. When you give the facts straight up and nothing else it is always correct and there is no question about it. If you give an opinion it can be taken in different ways. When giving an opinion you leave out a whole other side to the story that is not shown. Not only then can giving the opinion make it confusing what is right, but then it causes so many other misconceptions about it. If you stay to the facts then you can not go wrong. Thus you can not do both fact and opinion because when you combine both fact and opinion it does not become history anymore.
1. I believe that the objective school of history is the one with the higher truth value. This is because the objectives gave you the facts and told you “what actually happened”. Although sometimes the objectives dropped some of the facts, they only did so to not waste time throwing in “useless clutter”, they just gave you the facts and points that needed to be known, so that you knew that the event took place. Whereas the revisionists would write down the history in the way that best suited them. The way they saw things was that there was room for interpretation and bias. For instance, if a certain group lost a fight, then they might record the history in a way that makes the group that they lost to look bad, just because they are mad that they lost. This isn’t to say that the objectives can’t have different interpretations; you might think that something happened, but you still know what the actual truth is.
2. I think that it is first and foremost important to get the facts straight and to tell it right. If you have to alter the truth just to relate it to someone than that is not good. You want to stick to what actually happened. But if it is possible to both keep the facts straight, and make it relevant to the reader then go for it. As long as you are telling the truth, then it might be easier for the reader if you do find a way to make it relevant to them.
Julie Furton/ APUSH/4th Hour/ 12/6/11
1.The objective history seems to represent the truth more than the revisionist history. The objective history is all about the facts and only the facts. They don’t include their opinions; they only include facts and events that cannot be argued either way. The objective historians also feel that there does need to be an opinion, but the opinion will come later from looking at all of the facts lined up together. Their version of “the truth” is exact, precise, and cannot be argued. The Revisionists feel that when writing history, there always needs to be an opinion or bias or you are just writing random facts and you can’t really get the truth. They feel that in order to write “the truth” you need to be on one side or the other to capture what really happened. They also feel that they must include both stories from the winners and losers so you can get a feel for the outcomes of either side. Their writing type seems more like persuasion than real history to me.
2.In my opinion, in history getting the facts straight and telling it right is much more important than making the history relevant to the reader. History should always be the truth but if people start writing opinions just to make the history relevant to the reader, the entire truth aspect of it goes away. History should just show the facts because the relevance can be very different for two different groups of people and it’s not fair to make someone read “history” if it includes someone else’s opinion. No, I don’t feel that history can be both; it should only ever be the straight facts. The relevance can come later, for example in a discussion because in a discussion people will always have different opinions but there should never be an opinion about a piece of history, for example World War II. Yes, there are different opinions on the actions of all the countries involved depending on which country were talking about but those opinions are not fact, the fact is that Word War II happened. The relevance of a certain event can be much more significant to one person than it is to someone else depending on their race or religion and we shouldn’t be forcing people to make a certain event significant to them, just because it is significant to the writer. By mixing writing history with both events and significance or relevance, the line between fact and opinion becomes very blurry and people don’t know if they are reading about an even that actually happened and just someone else’s thoughts on the event.
Which school of history – objective or revisionist – best seems to represent the truth? Why?
The objective view takes the big events of history that are important to a wide variety of people into account. Other smaller events are important to them, but not as important or relevant to the larger population. So I think the school of objective seems to represent more truth. We could never tell every individual story, so we should tell the big events to the next generation that are of the most significance. Some examples are many different small things happen to people everyday, but they don’t make a history book on it (maybe a blog or an autobiography) but when the big events happen like the Roman Empire then we can actually write about a lot of things that took place over that time period that are important to the whole world.
Which do you think is more important to history – making it relevant to the reader / viewer or getting the facts straight and telling it right? Can you do both? Why or why not?
They are both important because if you get the facts straight you get the main point across that is important, but also by making it relevant you can get the facts across in an interesting way that makes the reader of the facts delve more into the subject of history. Some examples are learning about the creation of our nation, the United States of America, many Americans probably know how it happened with the facts they learned, but every day they make it interesting by adding to the history of our nation with stories relevant to all kinds of people. We learn something new all the time that makes American history interesting and America a place we want to be.
Question 1
I believe that objective history best represents the truth, because it considers all the information regarding an event or topic and it is less susceptible to bias than revisionist history. Objective history values facts, rather than opinion. It simply relates the facts of the matter without offering its own stance on issues. Objective history lays the information out on the table to let the reader form his/her own conclusions. This represents the truth better than revisionist history because it does not relay the historian’s interpretation of what happened; it relays what actually happened. It attempts to describe the past without bias.
The absence of bias is important, because bias can distort the truth by favoring one point of view over another. Unfortunately, even objective history is flawed in this way because it is impossible to create a completely opinion-free record. A historian cannot include every single fact from all time in their work, so just the action of choosing which facts to relay taints the objectivity. Despite its flaws, however, objective history is more accurate than revisionist history. Revisionist history is completely based on bias. Instead of representing the truth, it represents the ideal truth of one party to promote their cause or hurt another. It misrepresents groups and events to fit the vision of a dictator or people, and misinforms future generations.
Question 2
I think it is much more important to get the facts straight rather than make history relevant to the reader/viewer. While it may be uninteresting to read something impossible to relate to, that is not the point of history. We learn over and over again from literature and the media that “history repeats itself”, and that we should learn from the mistakes we’ve made in the past to avoid them in the future (or just make better mistakes, as the poster in Mr. Wickersham’s room says). If history only describes events that are interesting and relevant to ourselves, how will we learn from the mistakes of our ancestors? Information might be ignored because it isn’t relevant in the present, but it may become relevant in the future. If we’ve forgotten about it we have lost the knowledge gained from that experience. However, I think it would be possible to make the past relevant to the present in many situations without leaving out too much information. Current events often mirror events in the pasts, so we can always turn to the news.
1.) I think the objective school represents the truth best. History and learning about history wasn’t made for the purpose of sugarcoating it to make you feel good about what your country has done or what happened in the past. History happened the way it happened, and it should be taught as such. However, by being very strict in their teachings and very pointedly teaching history, they may leave out facts or events that some may feel to be important, whilst they believe that it is “useless clutter.” I honestly believe that a medium ground would be best for the teaching of history between objective and revisionist. On the other side, however, you have the revisionists, who look at all point of views of history. I believe that the way you learn history is probably best decided based on preference. If you’d prefer to see all points of views and feel the relevance, learning from a revisionist standpoint is best. If you’d rather see things from a scientific, straight to the point, ‘this is how it happened’ standpoint, objective teaching may be better. Personally, I think the objective school represents more truth and actual fact.
2.) What I think is more important to history is getting the facts straight and teaching them correctly. I also believe that relevance is important, but in the end, nothing can be more important than the truth. We may not like it, and of course, certain things in history aren’t going to be relevant to today’s day and age, but you can’t have everything with a deep meaning to today. As I stated in question one, it would be nice to find that happy medium where relevance and truth combine for its own form of teaching, but the of the options I’ve been given in this particular question, I would definitely think that truth and getting the facts straight, and represented correctly is what is more important. You can have it both ways, but if you find yourself sugarcoating the truth to make it sound good or telling it in an untruthful way for relevance sake, then that’s where you’ve gone wrong.
1. The objective school of history best represents the truth because of its views on history and the use of facts. In history there is a story behind every fact however what we are taught and what we know are facts. Almost every kid knows of the Revolutionary War, however most kids do not know all of the stories behind this war. The revisionist view can be biased, and although history is perceived through opinions, the more objective the history is the, the more truth lies within it. If history is taught only through a subjective point of view than people learn through a professor or another person’s opinion. The way we learn is the way our children are going to learn because we pass information down to them. If we teach our kids what we learned based on someone’s opinion then our kids are learning information that is not true.
2. I believe getting the facts straight and getting it right are more important than making it relevant to the reader. If we teach history through a way were it may be more interesting but not true, than we are hurting ourselves by passing down inaccurate information to our future generations. Despite the cons of making it more relevant to the readers, I do believe it is possible to integrate interesting information into the history. History can be taught using facts but also stories. If we do not keep people interested in our fascinating history; then there is no point in having it. Without the strong push for people to learn history through both a dry and non dry sense, America would not be the same place it is today.
1. I agree with the second group but since the second group offers no solution to the problem they brought up then I think that we will just have to suffice with the first group’s idea of history. While what the second group talked about was interesting and true, it really wasn’t relevant since it merely disproved the first idea. The second group is looking at things with the glass half full; it’s basically saying that history cannot be written, which does not solve the issue at hand; writing the truth, even though it is the truth. Therefore I agree with that the second group is the truth but it is not necessarily right. I agree with the second group only to agree with the first group. I agree that it is impossible to write unbiased history but that does not mean we stop trying, as it seems the second group is intent on doing. The past is important in determining the future; to learn from our mistakes and use history as a tool to guiding us in the future not to run blindly into it, although sometimes it seems that is what is needed. The first group is not necessarily true it is practical, the second group is true but is not practical so the ideal thing to do is to find a mid point between, but if we go with the easier way which is to go with first groups’ idea we will just have to keep in mind that that history isn’t always straight fact and that lot of its opinion.
2. I think that getting the facts straight is more important than making history pleasing to the viewer, let the viewer make their own opinions about historical events. Personally I feel that I can never truly rely on other people’s opinions and views because they are not sitting were I am seated. Same for history they weren’t there and even if they were they didn’t experience everything involving that topic. I feel like no one person can recall, accurately with no bias; history, but I also feel history is not just straight facts it can also be the emotions and opinions that caused these events and that’s were the confusion occurs. People seem to deduce their own reasons for these events without proof, but even with evidence it does not always mean it’s the truth. That is were I start to think that the we should just forget about history and look towards the future, but we simply cannot because the past is important if we want to look towards the future, we learn from it. But since trying to be completely unbiased without leaving out historic facts is nearly impossible and too complicated, I am fine with the first group’s idea of history, since it is the only real solution. Yes, I think you can do both but it would take many, many years to record just plain facts and you wouldn’t be able to combine it all into one standard textbook for everybody. There would have to be a great number and variety of books, each for its own historic topic to cover them all. In conclusion, I think that to find a comfortable mean between straight facts and relevance to the reader would be nearly impossible.
1. Which school of history – objective or revisionist – best seems to represent the truth? Why?
I feel that the objective school of history seems to represent the truth. The reason why I feel that the school of objective represents the truth the best is because History is something that actually happened and there really had to be people there to experience the change that occurred in the world. When Winston Churchill stated, that “with objective history becomes a catalog of facts“, it really bothered me because he made it sound as if facts isn’t history, History is a big catalog of facts because you can’t have history without facts or else you statements would become myths. Also in History it is possible to record the events that occurred in the past and put them in chronological order, Its plain and simple just find someone who was a part of that history or get someone who has ancestors or who knows someone during that time period, because how do you think they got the history of some events that we have today.
2. Which do you think is more important to history – making it relevant to the reader / viewer or getting the facts straight and telling it right? Can you do both? Why or why not?
When it comes to history that is going to be read to generations and generations after mine, I think that it is best that historians need to get the facts straight and tell it right. The reason why I think that people need to get the facts straight and tell it right because for example I could have learned a specific event in history and then get old and have kids and their teachers could be instructed to tell them the same event totally different based on how the new historians feel will be appealing to the reader, and in affect me and my kid will be on two separate pages. These are the reasons why I think that the objective school of history best represents the truth and why it is best to get the facts straight and tell the story right.
1.The revisionist school of history seems more truthful than the objective school. History is like a timeline, full of information that is important, but small details that are not. It is more accurate to go through that line and isolate the major facts from pointless ones than include everything. For example, one way the objective opinion could be possibly flawed is other historian’s opinions. One historian might think WWI started for reason #1, but then his other historian friend could think reason #2 was the cause. There is no fact behind the assumption that something is true.
2.Getting the facts straight is a lot more important than pleasing the reader. If you please the reader and don’t get the facts straight, how is that history? However, you can do both, please the reader and have the facts. Facts can appeal to your audience because you are telling the truth. When we all were little kids, we learned that lying to impress someone, or be better than someone else, was a bad thing and a punishable action. You not only get the satisfaction of having real facts, but also the enjoyment of the audience.
1. An objective historian seems to best represent the truth because they base history on facts. Objective historians take a more scientific approach to it. Revisionists distort history to have a bias outcome. They believe that even if you try and use science you are still choosing facts, putting them in order, and excluding some. Historians have to include their interpretation, so why not have bias results? I don’t think that this is the best way to have the most accurate outcome. A revisionist would seem to be the one that glorifies a story or romanticizes it instead of recording the truth such as hardships of the West or the illegal removal of Indians. Because views of different people would be different anyways, so distorting the facts pointlessly affects the truth.
2. I think it is more important to tell the facts straight. If the facts are distorted or the reader is misinformed then that could start a chain reaction of falsified or modified information. Without the truth, patterns will be harder to predict. There are many dates and names left out that if provided can shape the world a different way and scientist could have more accurate information. Accurate information makes the life of a scientist and historian much easier and information could easily spread into the public. The application of these stories to everyday life would also be very important. Society constantly learns from the mistakes of the past, and if the facts of the past aren’t there as much there would be less to learn from.
1. The school of objectivity best represents the truth of history. Objectivity is based on fact rather than biased opinion. When history is written it should be written the way it actually happened, not the way someone says it happened. Biased history tends to leave out key facts about the events and sometimes tells lies to make one side look better than the other. Revisionist school of history is told by one sides perspective of what happened, which means the other half isn’t keyed in on as much as the other.
2. I believe telling the facts for what really happened is more important than making it relevant to the reader/ viewer. However, I believe you can tell the facts for what they are and make it relevant simply by getting both sides opinions of what happened and then comparing them to what the facts say. Sometimes when students have to do a project on one specific side of an event in history, that side’s perspective is more relevant to them than the facts. So yes you can state the facts and make it relevant, with both stories being true.