I agree a hundred per cent. History is an amazing subject, and it could stop bad things happening once again because the children could then learn about the awful stuff what has happened and you would know how to stop the problem and not to do it. Also because I really like the subject.
I do not believe that History in the United States is taught well at all, at least in my experience. I don't have to look any further than Jaywalking, a show on TV where Jay Leno asks people questions that they should easily know. Some guy didn't even know what the Holocaust was. It hasn't even been more than a century since that happened.
The education system in America is in need of reform and parents need to stop making schools lower the educational standards because their kids don't want to go home and do homework.
The education system in America is in need of reform and parents need to stop making schools lower the educational standards because their kids don't want to go home and do homework.
History is a pretty funny subject. It's interpretation lies in the eye of the reader. I often feel that it's better for a nation to start from scratch rather than study history in a distorted way.
Sometimes I feel that certain events in history are given a decent burial and never revived in public discourse. Of course, we need to keep official records of history as a matter of academic, political and social interest, but in general I think unless one can guarantee a totally factual and unbiased rendering of history we should leave it alone.
Too many historians are passing off their personal opinion as facts. This is diluting the real value of history and would lead to dangerous distortions which might be accepted as fact.
Sometimes I feel that certain events in history are given a decent burial and never revived in public discourse. Of course, we need to keep official records of history as a matter of academic, political and social interest, but in general I think unless one can guarantee a totally factual and unbiased rendering of history we should leave it alone.
Too many historians are passing off their personal opinion as facts. This is diluting the real value of history and would lead to dangerous distortions which might be accepted as fact.
Reality is subjective. What is true to 1 may be a lie to another (religion is a great example).
I will not accept that as a rational and reasonable person. Facts are facts and facts can be either true or false - no shades of grey. And history should be factual and not mingled with opinion or commentary. For instance, Holocaust denial is totally absurd. Reading the facts of history as recorded by prominent and well-trusted sources, no rational human being can doubt that it really did take place.
It is opinion and commentary that render facts grey and allow people to use relative moralism arguments.
History can certainly be biased or wrong. New data comes to light and changes things. Authors can put their opinions in to a book and intentionally or inadvertently make them look factual.
The thing is, no matter how rational or how reasonable a person is, they still have their own opinions and as such those who write the history books do so with their own opinions in their heads. Even though it may not be obvious, a lot of the time opinions end up going down as facts whether it is on purpose or even subconsciously. The New Deal and whether or not it made the Depression better or worse is a great example. Another one is how who we consider terrorists may be considered freedom fighters by others.
If opinions go down as facts, it shows only intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty on the part of the historian. Surely a trained academic knows what is his own opinion and what is a fact he has gleaned from either personally or through a specific source. If another source claims an event as fact, all he has to do is record the source and attribute it. Some historians even go so far as verifying with other sources meticulously. Surely it is all part of the academic rigour and process to clearly list out footnotes/endnote references and bibliography.
Surely laypeople can be excused for such mistakes. Not historians and academic scholars.
Thus I was talking more about deliberately hiding facts or de-emphasizing them to an extent that they appear insignificant. Misleading the public with their authority on a topic.
So long as opinions are clearly marked as such and done in a scholarly fashion, I have no problem with them. Fact is, some historians use their authority to deliberately mislead and sometimes even lie about facts.
Last edited:
It is utterly impossible to for a person to have no bias, experience leads to beliefs and a belief is bias. To do as you say would require to not even bother recording history.
If you read what I stated carefully, you will note that I said it's not wrong to have bias, but it should not affect the recording of facts accurately and with the due academic rigour to verify them.
It's not impossible. A lot of prominent and renowned historians do follow the academic rigour in verifying and recording accurate facts. It's a few politically minded historians who tend to distort it and hide behind your argument that one cannot be totally unbiased. I refuse to accept your argument because I have read history books in which facts alone are recorded. School history books should place only verified facts and allow students to form their own opinions.
Historians should have enough self-discipline to clearly distinguish facts from their own opinions and the honesty to acknowledge opinion as opinion. There is a place for fact, and there is a place for opinion.
Give me a single example of why you think fact and opinion cannot be distinguished.
Last edited:
WAs Gandhi a man of peace or a supporter of genocide? Was the CSA about free confederation or slavery? Was Rome the standard barer of civilization or a murderous stain on Human history?
I hope you see what I'm getting at. People can find 'verified facts' to conclusively prove both positions in every example. Which facts and thus which historical view you accept depends on your... Bias.
Exactly. Facts can either be true or false. There can be umpteen number of opinions BASED on them.
You're trying to answer questions which I think should not be answered by historians as "facts" if they want to record history faithfully, accurately and without bias. Trying to figure out the mindset of individuals or groups in history should not be a factual question. It is an opinion which should clearly be separated from the actual facts by the historian involved. And that is where academic rigour and discipline comes in. If you have clear proof either way, record it. If not, express a view based on your honest analysis.
Tell the facts straight without trying to even answer those questions or if you do, record it clearly as opinion.
Last edited:
So Gandhi was a man of peace that wished for the deaths of over 20 million people. That is what you get by stating 'facts' but offering no context, explanation or opinion. It's a simple statement of simple fact that lets a person know about something but teaches them nothing. Great for Trivial Pursuit, not so great for laying the foundations of a civilization, improving on the works of others or avoiding repeating mistakes.
Similar threads
