This perspective would find few adherents today. It has become painfully obvious that no researcher is a blank slate. We all start with some fixed philosophy about what is true and what is not. It should not and can not be otherwise. All history is, in this sense, biased. Just like what one of the greatest Filipino historian talked about that “there is no such things in history as objectivity…”
Can any discipline truly be objective? Even in scientific subjects, scientists are drawn to certain subjects, issues and questions more than others, which may influence the way in which they interpret the results. Bias is even clearer when it comes to History because of the heavy reliance on primary sources, especially written documents. Humans are notoriously unreliable, and so any attempt to find out a single, universal truth is futile. Yet Historians have to put the pieces of the puzzle together in order to create a coherent narrative, even if this means focusing on specific issues at the expense of others.
Hence, an Historian goes to the primary sources available with ideas in their head about the issues that they want to research and the different avenues that they want to explore, but with an open mind about what the primary sources are likely to reveal. However, Historians cannot disassociate themselves from their underlying views and beliefs when it comes to interpreting sources.
Ultimately an Historian's job is to create a coherent narrative by utilising the documents and artifacts that have been uncovered. However, in order to create a coherent narrative, a certain amount of selectivity is required on the part of the Historian, which is clearly influenced by their overall intentions. Basically, the primary sources which do not neatly fit in with their overarching theories may be discarded, or only covered briefly. This paves the way for other Historians to come along and use those sources, as well as the ones already used, to enhance the Historiography available and maybe even to challenge a particular Historical theory.
It is impossible for Historians, and so History, to be completely objective. However, if the same primary sources are available to all Historians, they are each able to interpret the sources as they want. This builds up a substantial Historiography so that if there are flaws in the work of one Historian, there is potential for others to redress the balance. An Historian may take a particular political position, but they are always conscious of the fact that their work will be peer-reviewed, and so there is pressure to be as objective as possible within the framework available.
History is essentially about questioning the past. Historians can only work with the sources that are available, and so they are always going to be limited in the questions they can ask of them. Even though History can never be completely objective, it does not detract from the fact that History remains an extremely important subject which should be acknowledged as such.
History provides an overview of events that ultimately shaped the world in which we live today. History enables us to recognise the shared past which continues to shape our identities and helps cultivate a sense of belonging to society.
In this point of view, we can definitely say that in terms of asking such question on whether or not history is subjective or Objective, that question may answer quite easy as what this book point about. History of course is an objective knowledge. Thus, every evidences that may appear, every topic or problem statement that endure to our mind, there’s this bias statement that flows and wanted to proved about. But in the perspective of one of my Professor , she said that “there’s this subjectivity in studying history. And as much as possible you should look at history into a subjective form, without any biases”. Then I asked myself, on how can I look history as a subjective form of knowledge? He then answers my question. “You can write history by giving the good side and bad side of the story of the past.” In her answer, I, then realized that I can put the good and bad side of the story of the past.
When you read history, look for the objective facts and the subjective conclusion the writer draws from these facts. Look for which approach the writer is employing in their history. Look for what universal truths the writer is presenting. Historians do not always write what we want to hear so resist judging the content based upon personal ideology.
Remember that history gave us insight into who we are, who we can be, and a sense of our identity. Try to find the answer to those problems happened in the past, thus, then you can find the answer on the problem in our present, likewise for the following problems that may come up in the future. History as our identity gives us the sense of knowledge on looking back every single struggle that we had. We can look on the past while we are in the present, but we can never go back to the past to change our future. History may give us fear, changes, pride, and sometimes lead us to give up on some things that we have. But remember this, as long as you can handle yourself in choosing the right path, then history will be our handicap to show to the world that this fear would be our inspiration, that changes would be the hardest thing to do, the most useless asset is pride, and greatest mistake ever in our history, is giving up the things important to you. That’s the reason why our hero today is being celebrated the heroic deeds that they did. It’s because of the fact that they never give up the things that is important to them, and that’s independence and freedom.
In my daily living being a History student. I wonder myself, does history really repeat itself? If do, how?
Base on Clemente F. Rogers, an English Theologian, “History repeat itself, say the proverbs, but that is precisely what it never really does. It is the historians (of a sort) who repeat themselves.” I for one actually admitted this fact. It really does, that historians claim to study history, and telling everyone that history repeat itself, thus, what they really don’t know is that, they are the one who repeat telling the story of our past. As a matter of fact, in giving facts about history, you should as much as possible give new knowledge with regards to history. In our World History books, I for one disappointed in every aspect that Historians likewise authors of the book write history. For me, World History is not just the story of a few individuals and countries. As observation is concern, I have observed that our World History books and other books of history such as Asian History and even my own country history is just the story of a great man, their deeds, and everything about them. It is likewise the story of just a few countries.
Being a historian, it is our great responsibility to give such chronological detail on every history of the different country. If you’re an author of a book of World History, you should write the history of every single country in the world. Or just a history of every continent consist our world. Understanding the past appears to be a universal human need and the telling of history has emerged independently in civilizations around the world.
If your going to write the history of a certain country perhaps you should write the history of every state that that country consist. For the purposes of this survey it is written history recorded in a narrative format for the purpose of informing future generations about events. Thus, this would be a great deal to those studying History for them to know the real history of their country. Not just the period, not just the great men, but perhaps, every thing about their state and countries.
History, in its broadest sense, is the totality of all past events, although a more realistic definition would limit it to the known past. Historiography is the written record of what is known of human lives and societies in the past and how historians have attempted to understand them. Of all the fields of serious study and literary effort, history may be the hardest to define precisely, because the attempt to uncover past events and formulate an intelligible account of them necessarily involves the use and influence of many auxiliary disciplines and literary forms.
The concern of all serious historians has been to collect and record facts about the human past and often to discover new facts. They have known that the information they have is incomplete, partly incorrect, or biased and requires careful attention. All have tried to discover in the facts patterns of meaning addressed to the enduring questions of human life
No comments:
Post a Comment