Posted: 10/24/2005 8:26:07 PM EDT
| That historians frequently contradict one another and take liberties with evidential sources as serve their purpose or otherwise support their views is no secret; for every historical figure or event, there are no less than a dozen definitive accounts purporting the truth of the matter. So on what basis do we decide what is the truth? And if there is no basis to decide, how can the past truly be known? |
By "truly" do you mean 100%? If so, I doubt it. Most events have numerous causes, and the historical record for each cause can easily be incomplete. As an example (taken from a recent posting), we know the Allies deployed (used in combat) an atomic bomb before the Axis Powers did. We know this to be a fact. What’s still being argued over is why. Did Heisenberg really mislead the German government about the feasibility of Germanys ability to make a bomb? Or was it a combination of the destruction of heavy water supplies along with Hitler’s conviction that Germany could win the war by conventional means? We’ll never know for sure. There aren't enough solid facts available to allow us to say 2+2=4 with respect to this event like we can over the statement "the Allies deployed an atomic bomb before the Axis Powers did". I think the best way to get around this for a given topic is to read everything you can about it. It's like owning car repair manuals. Best own 4 or more, hopefully one will have the information you need when the others don't!! |
To speak of truth as a percentage or fraction of reality strikes me as somewhat odd. Does 2+2=4 90% of the time? Does an apple released in midair not fall to the ground 1/100000000 of the time? I have read both American and English translations of Japanese accounts of the Marine campaigns on Tarawa and Saipan. You wouldn't know you were reading about the same events. There are no less than five definitive accounts of the Spanish Armada, the great Macaualy anong them. One histornian says the Duke of Sidonia was a dupe of the king; another historian says he was a tragic hero; another historian says he was an incompetent fool; another historian says he was peurile; and yet another historian says he was quite simply insane. Each historian appeals the same basic set of facts and comes up with a different and incompatible conclusion. So how do we decide which account is true? The one we agree with the most? If most of us agree that 2+2=5, does it also make that true?? |
|
What you are talking about is the essence of history scholars exsistence The fact is if you know the reasons the event happened and the results of that event you are good The rest is details, academics fight over details constantly, but the cause and effect does not change that is the fact and ewssence of History Knowledge |
This begs the question, doesn't it? Was the Spanish Armada defeated because the Duke of Sidonia was incompetent or because he was the dupe of the king? Two very different causes, and therefore two very different histories to consider. Historians can't even agree on the facts of the events they attempt to describe, much less what was or was not in the minds of those causing or attending those events. I'm sorry, but having an appreciation of the past and knowing the past are two very different things, hence the title of this thread. |
Why? We're dealing with history here. 5 people can witness the same accident, and the police will get 5 different accounts of what happened. This is where the police then correlate the info to come up with an explanation that, while maybe not 100% factual, it nevertheless allows them to figure out what happened. I have no problem with a given history being 98% historical fact, simply because, as I stated in my first post, the historical record is very often incomplete. Where it is incomplete historians try to fill in the blanks as best they can. This is just a given. And I suppose (to actually answer your question from my viewpoint) that this makes it possible or probable that many historical details will never really be known for sure. Maybe the Duke of Sidonia suffered from *all* the maladies you mentioned, as well as a good dose of bad luck and an uncooperative Mother Nature. |
That there can be only as much precision as the subject matter admits is the usual, tired response, as evidenced in your reply. And I would even settle for that, because at least it is honest. But what I am talking about are the illicit stratagems historians use when they claim to get into the minds of people and identify motivations and intentions that the people may or may not have had or even knew they had, or when historians emphasize certain facts while minimizing others as suits their thesis or agenda, or when historians use words which so color the writing with emotion that you don't know whether you're reading history or a poem about an historical figure or event. That you do not find five definitive, incompatible accounts of the Spanish Armada problematic is not surprising, as most students of history are not bothered beyond the telling of the story. Fact is, historians start not with the facts but with a point of view, and fill in the gaps as serves their purpose. You call it history; I call it bullshit. |
Then what’s the answer, other than the usual tired reply? Just a chronology of dates? Do you think that history should be nothing more than: "On this date such and such happened, and on this date this person died"? When in historical writing do you think opinions are warranted? When should a historian (or bullshit artist) allow himself or herself to go out on a limb with causation not in line with everyone else’s? When is it allowable for a person to *try* to "get inside" when dealing with an historical figure or try to think out of the box as to why a person acted or made the decisions they did? Anyway, I have to add, that I find it interesting that you seem to have insight into the cognitive processes of "most students of history". Even though you've never met the vast majority of these millions of people. I sense that statement was colored with emotion..... |
There are no cognitive processes with most students of history. That is my point. Uncritical acceptance of historical discourse is not thinking; it is rote learning, tantamount to third graders memorizing multiplication tables. Nothing you have said (which is precious little) presents the slightest counter-argument to my original claim. That the fraudulence and fabrication of historians, and therefore the worth of their history, does not bother you is only as it should be, you being a student of history and all. |
|
"history is a lie agreed upon." can't remember who to attribute that to. if you have ever been in court or interviewed by the media you will understand the full impact of that statement. i guess for me the question is: can we actually learn anything from history, or is it just a collection of fun stories? at best perhaps fables or parables? glad to see the intelectuals have returned to this site. now i will have something to read. |
No problem, think what you will. I in turn have a real problem with your premise that because several histories covering the same topic disagree with one another they are all garbage, or worse, lies. Critical thinking, by its very nature, will likely lead to different conclusions from one person to another. You say people should be critical thinkers, yet you label the end results as fraudulent or as fabrications. That historians should try to get into the “minds of those causing or attending those events” that you read about is ludicrous to you. Yet you put your self into the mind of the historian, and come away with the fact that they are liars, and out committing fraud to further their own agendas. Why is it so odd to you that Japanese and Americans can have a different perspective of a battle? That the Marine grunt on the ground might see things differently than his company commander? Anyway, write us a book on the Armada, so we can know for sure what happened!! I’m sure you’ll do a better job than the incompetents that preceded you, but I’ll leave it to others to critique. Being just an average student of history, I frequently have trouble thinking for myself…. |
|
There is no true way to know exactly what happend for most any event in history. There are rarly video cameras which pick up the whole incedent, and even then, the aforementioned resons for the actions my never be known. I am of the belief that one must read all accounts of a historical event. However, they must not study only the event, but the people who wrote of the event. Was the historian a socialist, and perhaps painting things in a socialist light? It obviously goes on and on, and we will only be able to make excellent educated guesses about the facts, and motived behind them. I would suggest that it is indeed worthwile to prusue history as more than simple stories from the past. In a modern context I read about peoples experiments when it comes to turbo dodges, and come to understand what will and wont work. Most people might not call it history, and it is most certainly a very simple history, but it is usfull none the less. I think that it stands to reason that history could be used on a much more grand scale than that. |
First, there is a difference between trafficking information and fostering an agenda, and it is important to know which you are being presented with when reading about the past. To color or otherwise interpret historical fact as suits your purpose or point of view is not history, whether it favors a socialist slant or a capitalist one. Second, it cannot be the reader who decides what is and what is not historical fact, as the account the reader likes the most or thinks is the most convincing is not a criteria of truth. And therein lies the dilemma: Historians are often motivated by factors other than objectivity when writing about the past (i.e., they are ingenious liars) and readers are not in a position to be the ones deciding what are the facts of the matter. And so what is left? I'm afraid that the residue which remains after you extract the bias and bullshit from historical discourse is merely a boring narrative of one damn thing after another, tantamount to watching paint dry and moving your lips while you do it. |
If the readers are not the ones to judge the facts of the matter, then how is one to get to the boring narrative you speak of? |
Unfortunately, sorting garbage from flowers in history is not as easy as casting out nines in arithmetic. Determining whether one is being presented with historical fact or a characterization of historical fact as suits the historian's agenda takes some work. I have found the best way to do this is to read several accounts of the same event. At some point in each narrative, the historian will begin using words couched in a tone which betray a purely objective view. Further, certain facts will be emphasized while others are minimized or ignored altogether as is convenient or necessary for the historian's view. Typically, this practice develops into a pattern; when the same fact is discussed, each historian will present it in a way that lends credence to their particular point of view. In the case of the Spanish Armada, for example, the five definitive accounts extant demonstrate a remarkable departure in their descriptions of the same facts. The evidence that one historian presents to show that the Duke of Medina Sidonia was insane is the same evidence another historian presents to show the Duke was a dupe of the King. I suggest that the difference in conclusions each historian presents is not accounted for by a difference in historical fact, but by the historian's manipulations of those facts as described above. The only thing the reader can do is to examine the residue after pulling out the emotion and self-serving characterizations of each historical narrative. What is then distilled is boring as hell, but at least it will have some proximity to truth. |
Other than gravity, Coriolis and 2+2=4, I have no idea what objective truth means, especially where language is involved. |
I agree. That was my point. Even 2+2=4 is not a truth about a "thing". |
I'm afraid that what I am talking about is a bit more insidious than a mere difference in perception. It has to do with lying, or if not lying, managing the truth so as to foster an agenda. Consider: There are two ways of describing a rainbow. One is that it is simply a "prism". Unfortunately, while wholly factual, this description is boring, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination (a thing is what it is and nothing more). The other way to describe a rainbow is more personal and certainly more appealing (e.g., "an arc of happiness that crying clouds make"). Now, the first description is that of science; the second is that of poetry. And what historians do is confound their accounts with both type of descriptions, to the point where the reader loses track of what in their writing is science and what is poetry. And the reason this is insidious is that often we do not know whether we are being convinced by the historian's preponderance of facts or by his characterizations of those facts which also strike an emotional chord within us, hence compelling our agreement other than on rational grounds. |
History makes a great weapon. |
We may be saying the same thing regarding the way to get to the narritve which is the most free of bias. I agree that it is not very sexy, or exciting. I do not find math books to be that exciting either, however they have come in use as I am contructing a garage out in my back yard. |
That is because your interest in math is for its heuristic value rather than its entertainment value. But what is history used for? If it is used as a tool or something which serves other than contemplative purpose, then the demand for truth (as with an axiom in geometry) is far greater than if you just want to read about the past for purpose of entertainment. 2+2=4 all the time, and this whether or not we like or agree with it; the same cannot be said for "Patton was a megalomaniac" or "the Duke of Sidonia was puerile". |
That is because your interest in math is for its heuristic value rather than its entertainment value. But what is history used for? If it is to be used as a tool or for something which serves other than idle purpose, then the demand for truth (as with an axiom in geometry) must be greater than if you simply want to read about the past for entertainment. 2+2=4 all the time, and this whether we like or agree with it or not; the same cannot be said for "Patton was a megalomaniac" or "the Duke of Sidonia was puerile", however. |
Agreed. I do like the chips and beer history for entertainment value, but I do like the boring stuff to. Perhaps I am just boring. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: First, there is a difference between trafficking information and fostering an agenda, and it is important to know which you are being presented with when reading about the past. excataly: however what happens when the agenda gets accepted ie: the sinking of the Maine it was originaly the Spainish then some sailior in the boiler room The Maine was taken to a deep trench near purto Rico in the 1920's so no one knows yet some American hating $%&*#@ decided it was an internal blast how could he know yet it is now accepted the same is occuring with the gulf of Tokin incident which poeple now say never happened BULL*&%$ there is no way to prove it yet academics are accepting it because it is new and something to talk about. |
And, unfortunately, it is in this way that unconfirmed history (either way) changes future history. I did two tours in Vietnam, the second at Khe Sahn; imagine my delight now (and that of the 58,000+ whose names are on some friggin' wall) if in fact the Tokin Gulf incident was a phony, or the delight of the 2000+ U.S. dead in Iraq if is is found that their lives were not given for the historical reason thus far provided. |
Some of those dead witnessed Iraq's refusal to abide by their agreement firsthand, i.e. firing on U.S. aircraft, continuing to fly in the no fly zone, refusal to allow inspector's free access, etc. Most veterans of the first Gulf War, myself included, recognize that allowing Iraq to continue to thumb their nose at the agreements they made was an unacceptable situation. Luckily we have been able to rectify the problem post-Clinton. |
Unfortunately, none of the reasons you give were the ones given originally for either Gulf War (Kuwait and proof of WMD). And I won't even go into the pretext for Mogadishu. |
Kuwait was reason enough for the first gulf war. WMDs certainly weren't the only reason for the second. Please reread the Security Council Resolutions. Whether or not he had them was, admittedly, a big part of things, but ignoring Saddam's failure to comply with his agreements was not an option. |