Relativistic History?

[Syreth]

My English teacher wrote about the historical school of literary criticism:

"Previously when critics applied the historical perspective, they assumed that the only function of history is to serve as backgound to literature, and that history was objectively true. However, in recent times this perspective has evolved wherein history represents "a" truth and not "the" truth. That is, ". . . history is subjective, written by people whose personal biases affect their interpretation of the past" (Bressler, p 181)."

That's right guys. History isn't true. It's only true because we think it's true (someone call Morpheus).

Seriously, we can't even look at the history of the world as objective anymore. We can only acknowledge it as "a truth," since people look at things in different ways. But can't people look at things the wrong way? Seriously, if we held to this way of thinking, we would hardly have a clue as to what actually happened in the past. I've heard of relativistic ethics, but relativistic history? I mean, come on.

I mean, there's no harm in saying that people look at things in different ways, but it's also important to point out who was wrong and who was right. Otherwise, what's the point?

Heh, sorry about the rant. I just wanted to get that off my chest and see what you guys think about it.

[Sammy Boy]

I think history is a complicated affair. Often many opinions about events of the past are pieced together from whatever available data we have, and good historians, when in doubt about something, will actually write "We don't really know for certain".

It is possible to make educated guesses, and the more data we have the better the guess will be.

I personally do not subscribe to any kind of unmitigated global scepticism, since I think it's a view that nigh impossible to defend. I do admit that bias gets into every interpretation of history we have, and that's simply because we are humans.

But that is not to say that we cannot know anything about the past with certainty. We do have documented records about events of the past that are reliable.

Sorry if it sounds like I've taken the long way around to saying nothing, but those are my thoughts.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

According to my friend, "History is written by the winners"

More like "History is written by events occuring". Nobody can really deny that events happened.

[bigsleepj]

According to my friend, "History is written by the winners"

More like "History is written by events occuring". Nobody can really deny that events happened.

Unfortunately history is written by the winners. That's an undeniable fact of life. It will take generations for a more balanced view to come to the forefront. This doesn't mean all revisionist history should be considered true or balanced. Some of this have a disturbing culturul or racist undertone, like Holocaust Denial (shudder). Ultimately historical revisionism could also have political ends for the people propugating it, so it has to be viewed very carefully and the facts should be checked and rechecked by reliable sources. In short, its a metaphorical minefield.

[holysoldier5000]

Actually getting a relativist to admit that anything is set-in-stone truth is a milestone in progress. Most relativists will say, “what’s good for you is good for you and what’s good for me is good for me.â€

[Technomancer]

Seriously, we can't even look at the history of the world as objective anymore. We can only acknowledge it as "a truth," since people look at things in different ways. But can't people look at things the wrong way? Seriously, if we held to this way of thinking, we would hardly have a clue as to what actually happened in the past.

True, but as bigsleepj pointed out, history is indeed written by the winners. That is why any good historian will try to investigate many different accounts of the events in question in order to get a clearer view of things. Where possible, clearly objective methods (such as archaeology) should also be used. None of this means there aren't notions or positions that are clearly wrong, or even implausible, but we should be careful about following the evidence. Not all of our cherished notions regarding history are completely true either.

[That Dude]

All I gotta say is that's what happens when you take God out of it. Don't you all just love post modernism?

[Syreth]

According to my friend, "History is written by the winners"

More like "History is written by events occuring". Nobody can really deny that events happened.

That's pretty much my take on it. The events are objective, the opinions about the events are subjective. We may not know exactly what happened, but our own ignorance doesn't give us the right to bend the events of the past to our liking.

I think I've read some of that post before, Hs5k, but it definately serves its purpose here. Thanks for putting things into perspective.

[Debitt]

A "relativistic" approach to history isn't the same as a relativistic approach to morals, methinks. As MSP mentioned, history is written by the winners - the most wide spread accounts of history are thus not the entire story. Does that mean that the popular interpretation history isn't true? No, it simply means that there are many different perspectives through which you can filter certain unchangeable events.

For example, everyone agrees the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There's no way to disprove that - we have pictures taken from the planes that dropped these bombs. However, the take on the choice to drop the bomb and the ideas on the effect the dropping of the bomb had is different wherever you go. (Please note I'm not trying to start up a debate on the ethics of nuclear weapons, but this happened to be the first example that popped into my head, and the clearest example of different takes on history).

In a case like this who WAS wrong and who WAS right? We can't really say without getting into some nasty bickering. This, I think, is relativistic history. There are some elements of history that WERE right and wrong, but I think the number of events in history that are open to different conclusions is far greater.

At any rate, the choice of the word relativistic seems a bit inaccurate. I prefer subjective. =/

[Syreth]

In a case like this who WAS wrong and who WAS right? We can't really say without getting into some nasty bickering. This, I think, is relativistic history. There are some elements of history that WERE right and wrong, but I think the number of events in history that are open to different conclusions is far greater.

I certainly see your point and I think we agree for the most part. However, when someone makes a claim like the haulocaust never happened (as bigsleepj brought up) then pointing out who is wrong and who is right is certainly important. I would think that bickering over something like that would be necessary, to say the least, because that's just flat out denying reality.

[Technomancer]

I certainly see your point and I think we agree for the most part. However, when someone makes a claim like the haulocaust never happened (as bigsleepj brought up) then pointing out who is wrong and who is right is certainly important. I would think that bickering over something like that would be necessary, to say the least, because that's just flat out denying reality.

Well yes, but in that case we have a wealth of personal and documentary evidence that is impossible to deny unless out of the most paranoid malevolence. Not all cases are like that however, and even in many cases where a notion can be falsified, or at least ruled out as highly improbable, there will always be a good many who will reject such findings. Humans are not unfortunately always rational, especially if they have been conditioned to reject another side's position a priori owing to nationalistic, racial, or religious reasons.

In terms of the general population, the appearance of the internet may have actually made things worse, since there is no meaningful source of quality control. Some one without solid training in historical research can easily be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material, especially if they have little grounding in the actual subject to begin with. In that case, I fear most will simply chose the materials that agree with what they want to hear.

[GhostontheNet]

History has always been a deck stacked by the perceptions of those who write it's accounts, which can often be those who were positively affected by their affiliation with those who prospered from the sequence of events. In postmodern jargon, "a truth" is a series of observations by an individuals which contain accurate information, but which are stacked by the individual's guiding narrative (that is, a sequence of events and interpretations by an individual and the culture they are a part of) to conform to that narrative. If you ever go out of your way to ask multiple people who witnessed the same thing what happened later on when isolated from each other, they will (if they are not in collusion) give different accounts with different points of emphasis. Which one is True? Probably some measure of all of them. I don't deny for a second there is an a fully objective Truth, but it rests with God and not men, which is why conformity with His will is so important. I could read account after account of Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, but I'll never know how each of the soldiers felt and what they thought as they considered whether they were saving or betraying Rome - these things rest in the mind of God, who knows us better than we know ourselves.

[Syreth]

In terms of the general population, the appearance of the internet may have actually made things worse, since there is no meaningful source of quality control. Some one without solid training in historical research can easily be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material, especially if they have little grounding in the actual subject to begin with. In that case, I fear most will simply chose the materials that agree with what they want to hear.

I think that's a point well made. I'm sure there have been others that have thought about some sort of means to regulate or classify the information on the internet -- I just hope that it gets put into place. In the meantime, I guess we just have to learn how to research and wade through the bogus and the biased until we find credible sources on the net (or maybe work up the initiative to actually step into a library ).

Ghostonthenet, I think that sums up the whole matter: although some truth is knowable, in the ultimate sense it is left to God and we have to trust Him. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

[CreatureArt]

don't deny for a second there is an a fully objective Truth, but it rests with God and not men, which is why conformity with His will is so important.

I agree with that.

I don't take History at a tertiary school level but I did take every year it was offered in High School and one thing I started to pick up in the later years is that the popular view of history can change. For example, we studied the topics of Early Modern England and one case study was to look at the different perspectives of historians on Elizabeth Tudor. Different historians had different takes. But the main thing was that they tended to use the same evidence.

Even though it is very possible for evidence to have little reliability (for example, government propaganda), like others have posted before me I think that there are things like wars happening that can't be argued with. However yes, history does tend to be written by the winners (and I agree with trying to get a balanced view by looking at sources and perspectives of both sides of a conflict).

But, in the end, regardless of whether something written down in a History book and taught to people (though I believe that we should endevour as much as possible to find the truth), isn't one important aspect of History for us to learn from it? Ok, so whether what we're learning is true or not really does impact us there, too. I'm just trying to raise the idea that History, with all its possible faults and inaccuracies, is something we can still use to learn from and avoid (or at least identify) future mistakes for ourselves and our socities/countries.

Not that I've read anything here that makes me think anyone here doesn't think that one important element of history is for us to learn from it. But personally, while History being true is extremely important, I think sometimes we don't have the ability and there aren't enough reliable records to get to the truth of the matter the most useful thing is to learn from history.

...hope I'm making sense. I need to get some good sleep tonight. I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts/disagreements on the matter, though.

[Technomancer]

I think that's a point well made. I'm sure there have been others that have thought about some sort of means to regulate or classify the information on the internet -- I just hope that it gets put into place.

In a strict sense that already does exist, however such sites aren't available to the general public. The effort of making, selecting, and organizing, quality information is a large undertaking, and is not something that can readily be supported by an "information is free" attitude. I can access a wealth of information in the form of scientific journals, but I can only do so because I'm at a university, and pay into such a scheme. Even if it were free, most of it would be incomprehensible without the requisite education.

In the meantime, I guess we just have to learn how to research and wade through the bogus and the biased until we find credible sources on the net or maybe work up the initiative to actually step into a library ]

It would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the public at large to suddenly start actively seeking information about the world in something resembling a semi-organized and studious manner. I may be a pessimist, but I found that Charles Pierce's essay "Idiot America" hit the nail on the head:

Idiot America is not the place where people say silly things. It's not the place where people believe in silly things. It is not the place where people go to profit from the fact that people believe in silly things. Idiot America is not even those people who believe that Adam named the dinosaurs. Those people pay attention. They take notes. They take the time and the considerable mental effort to construct a worldview that is round and complete.

The rise of Idiot America is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter deftly teased out of the national DNA forty years ago. Both of those things are part of it. However, the rise of Idiot America today represents for profit mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power, the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.