Reading responses should include specific examples from your history class so that you are linking knowledge issues to your learning. How is theory of knowledge shaping your understanding of history as an area of knowledge? How do we know history? What are the limitations to knowing history? How is history shaped?
chriscoeyproject Blog
A Sacramento City School Blogs weblog
How can history be used to evaluate (accept or reject) knowledge claims?
Yer Lee
ToK period 6
Mr. Coey
Monday, March 07, 2011
Reading Response History
Outline:
• What you have done determines who you are.
• Makes sense of the past by putting together various memories of our lives into meaningful narrative.
• Evidence: a) history is the study of the present traces of the past. b) misinterpret the evidence and jump to wrong conclusions. c) too little evidence vs. too much evidence. d) evidence from newspaper, TV and the internet.
• Significance: a) history is concerned with only the significant events in the past. b) to decide which is significant- how many people are affected by the event and the extent to which they are affected.
• Explaining the past: a) history id about explaining and understanding it. b) historians ask the question ‘why’ such things happen.
• Why study History?: (1) sense of identity (2) defense against propaganda (3) enriches our understanding of human nature.
• How can the past be known?: (1) primary sources- written by one who was present during the event. (2) secondary sources- a second-hand of what happened.
• The ‘great person’ theory of history: the course of history is mainly determined by great individuals.
Claims and Counter-claims:
The ‘great person’ theory of history:
Claims- If one or other great individual had not existed, then the course of history would have been different.
Counter-claims- All history is the history of thought, therefore one must know the motives of the ‘great individual’ and this is the requirement of empathy.
Personal connection:
In my English class, we had several prompts to write about two novels that we have read so far and one of the prompts was about the historical context in the novels. The prompt was “discuss how each novel and the events in each family reflect and comment on the political and historical changes occurring in the countries where each novel is set”. My English teacher said it was necessary to know about the historical facts that related to the novel and one cannot answer this prompt without knowing about it. This shows how history gives important background knowledge and with this knowledge one can understand better about a particular topic that the history relates to. I thought I have good knowledge about the historical facts in both novels so attempted to do the essay. However, as I approach the relation between the events in the novels and the historical facts, I did not know much and I needed to do much more background research.
Knowledge issue questions:
1. How can history be used to evaluate experiences and evidence?
2. How can the truth be perceived through historical events?
3. To what extent can history be bias?
History is more complex than perceived. There are many parts that are required complete history because we may lack proximity. And because of that, evidence is used so that we can provide if an idea, person, place, or object is “history.” Evidence is anything that can justify that the idea had existed. But not everything that occurs in life can be recorded in to the pages of history. There has to be significance to the event, because if not then information would be “all over the place” and by that I mean that too much information can be unorganized. Depending on the time and situation, value can be given to evidence. For example, you can’t record the silliest things into history for the whole world to see such as : Billy who is a United States citizen, went to use the wash room on Wednesday, at 3:00 p.m., with a red shirt, a white pants, and black shoes. To the world that is just a daily act that people do, his act doesn’t affect other people around him. In contrast to the event of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it has significance because he was the main leader of a nation. With the loss of the president the nation can be in great danger.
History is benefiting the human race. It can be considered as a guide in life. It gives identity, defence against propaganda, and can be used to learn more about human nature. But there are downs to it as well because there will be bias and selectivity through historians. Each historian has a different opinion on a certain event. For example, some historians may perceive Christopher Columbus as a great leader who contributed to growing a nation while other historians would see him as one of the world’s greatest murderer. Depending on how the historian may feel about the event will show when events are recorded down into history pages. The best way to understand an event as history would be to see the situation from perspective from others and putting the pieces together. Because then you will get more variety of opinions and it could equal out.
After reading the history chapter in the theory of knowledge I decided to look up the definition for history. Of all the definitions provided i felt that these one most related to our TOK class:
– the branch of knowledge dealing with past events
Now this first caught my attention because of the word “knowledge” because the word conveys that knowing history is a benefit to learning. In my personal opinions, history has been important to me, both in my culture and my religion. We all know that the Hmong people have moved from place to place and never having a true home to live and call “our country, our land.” And because of all the migrating of place to place we have lost some of our identity. There are still questions asking where Hmong people came from and how we came to be in this world. But fortunately, because of evidence in history we are able to uncover and gain some of the lost. This affects me because when I socialize with my community and especially when I attend school; people ask me what I am. I need to know what I stand as in this life because when you don’t stand for yourself some people will step all over you.
Questions:
• Without history, can we still shape our lives with truth?
• To what extent can justification detect bias and selectivity in history?
• How does emotions play in deciding what will be written in the history pages?
• How are events in life valued to be justified as history?
• If history is truth, how/should we use it to justify our beliefs?
I like your counter-claims with interpreting Columbus.
Outline:
What is history? It is the study of the present traces of the past. Evidence limits our knowledge. There is either not enough evidence or too much evidence. Lack of evidence leads to misinterpretation. Too much evidence makes it hard to make a definitive history. How do we select what is history? Usually an event that affects many people. History is not about what happened, but why it happened.
Why study history? Gives us a sense of identity, a defense against propaganda, and it enriches our understanding what human beings thought and done. Self-realizing expectations is when we think something cannot be changed so we don’t bother changing it.
How can the past be known? Primary sources are sources made from the time of the event. Problems are: different perspectives, biasness, and purposeful manipulation.
Writing history. It is a selection of a selection, meaning the primary sources already have selected what to include, then the secondary sources selects what to include from the primary sources. Hindsight is knowing how things turn out. The problem is biasness.
The problem of bias. A historian’s choice of topic is bias. A historian’s choice of evidence is bias. Cultural and political prejudices contribute to what we accept in history.
Theories of history. The ‘great person’ theory of history states that if a great person didn’t appear, history would be different. Empathy—try to understand the situation the same say a historical agent would have. How important are individuals? How do we decide who is a ‘great person’? Economic determinism claims that history is determined by economic factors. The role of chance theory states that there is no meaning in history and that it is governed by chance.
Conclusion. There is some kind of truth about the past. History gives us good judgment about human affairs.
Personal Experience:
I have never met my grandfather from my father’s side of the family. I don’t even know his name! Nor have I seen his pictures. My father told me that he died back in Laos from an accident. My grandfather and his friends were out hunting in the jungle at night, and it was said that he was “accidentally” shot because they thought he was a pig, I believe. I don’t know how accurate this claim is because for all I know, this could have been all planned out. I guess not knowing this part of history kind of limits my identity and of me really knowing who I really am. He is the only grandparent who I have never met. It is sad how I don’t even know who my grandfather is.
The problem with Hmong history is that it is not written, but only passed on from stories. I guess we can’t really tell what is the truth about the Hmong since each story is slightly altered and with the vast generations, dramatically altered from the original. We do not know exactly where and how we established, but we only have a sense of it. Hmong people are always saying “Peb yuav tsum sib hlub sib pab tsis txhob sib ntxub thiab nrog luag ua nom ua tswv, lwm hnub peb thiaj li muaj teb chaws li luag.” This means says “We must love each other, help each other, don’t hate each other, and become leaders in this society, so that we will have land like others.” However, I think one of our biggest limitations is that we don’t know who we really are. We can’t compare to other ethnic groups who has history written down. Our sense of identity will always be lost. I think this is true for all people, but maybe ours more than others.
Questions:
To what extent can history be accurate in the future if selection of a selection continues?
How limited are we to history from biasness? How much more do we know?
How does classification of history affect what we perceive?
I think you really get at an important issue of identity wrapped in history. If you don’t know your past, how can you know your future? Is history really so important that we can’t live without knowledge of the past? What is the value of history?
A reasonable approximation of history is that it is the study of the past. The purpose of a historian is to explain and interpret the past. History is studied because it is a defense against propaganda, gives us a sense of identity and enriches our understanding of human nature. In the novel 1984, by George Orwell, the government used its power to alter its history by killing off the people who knew about past events (or expressed that they had some knowledge of it) and promoted nationalism by using forged history, fake events that would cause the citizens to feel angry and passionate about. This can be assumed for our government too; if every history teacher is learning about a history that has been forged by the government, then students taking that history class will learn the same fake history that the government has forged and develop a sense of pride for their nation, and no one would be able to realize that it has been forged unless they were there in the time of the events. According to the Theory of Knowledge, written by Richard van de Lagemaat, “according to a well-known saying, a country without a history is like a person without a memory,” (304). If a country doesn’t have a history, then no one knows exactly how it was created. If a person doesn’t have their memory, then they have no idea how they became the person they are at that given time. If you know what a country has done, then you can tell what a country is like, just like how if you knew what a person has done, you’d be able to tell what that person is like. History enriches our understanding of human nature because by using past events and a timeline, we can map the growth of the human race intellectually or why some nations were superior to others in the past. For us to conserve history, we use primary sources or secondary sources. Primary sources are written or recorded by someone at the time of the event, while secondary sources are based on primary sources.
Fallible eye-witness: Because writers have different perceptions, when they record an event, their account is shaped by their interests, expectations and cultural background.
Social bias: When a recorded account reflects the interests of a social group rather than a society as a whole.
Deliberate Manipulation: When history is changed intentionally by groups with power.
Limitations to history: Bias
In my 7th grade World History class, my history teacher was lecturing to the students about Genghis Khan’s brutality and blood thirst. Genghis Khan was one of the most successful generals in his time, conquering almost all of Asia and had his eyes set on Europe. In my teacher’s lectures, he would portray Genghis Khan in a negative light, causing me to perceive Genghis Khan to be nothing more than a brute. But when I watched a movie that narrated his life (the movie’s name I do not recall), I learned that Genghis Khan had his fair share of sorrows and that he was not as bad as the man my history teacher portrayed him to be. Despite his ruthless nature in combat, he cared for his family. Despite the fact that his first son could have possibly not been his son, instead of killing his son, he raised him and taught him the ways of a Mongol warrior.
Is there really no way to write history “as it is” without bias? (I’m still having trouble grasping this concept.)
Should emotions be used to interpret history?
How reliable is using history to predict the future?
What’s troubling about being unable to write without complete objectivity is that we will never arrive at one omniscient truth. Right? But should we strive for perfection in studying history?
1. What is history? History is the studies of the past, however their must be evidence, a reason why it is significant and an explanation of the past. Studying history gives us a sense of identity. Like the saying about a country or person without a history is misled to the present and future, however if one has a history then they can be classify as an identity of themselves, which they can guide themselves to the present and future. History is a defense against propaganda because the rule of government changes the history of the present- past, and an autobiography can be changed by its own author, which erasing a piece of history puts the past into confused matters. Such as how the government is trying to misled us with its own interest of history in the past, and not letting us know of the other side of the history. History enriches our understanding of human nature by showing us how humans do their own actions and how they think, which history is classify into many areas of knowledge because of the studies of how one would react or how one shares its own ideas. Historians can mislead people into there own interest by telling their audiences that some part of history cannot be acquire, so why bother, however that is self-realizing expectations, which people can easily be misguided by not knowing about both side of the history. Historians used primary and secondary sources to seek knowledge of history. Seeking these sources can bring evidence close to true history, however historians would take the only piece of the history that is significant and interesting to them only, which brings history into confusion between claims, and these are fallible eye-witness, social bias, and deliberate manipulation that historians have violated in the primary and secondary sources. Written history comes from the facts that historians would most agree on. The selections of a history is the selection of how much that piece of history has about the past events, which historians would only want to put the most significant that has the evidences and explanations of its own history, however it is only the ignorance of the historian for not putting all claims and pieces of history together. The style that historians use is hindsight. The strength of using the style is by using little information and put it into historical records, which can interest others to beliefs its piece of history. The weakness is how the significant role of hindsight is being used by bringing uncertain information into historical records, which is hindsight bias. Historians are bias. Historians make the choice of topic, confirmation and national bias, which would bring unknown or uncertain types of information that historians can only accept or influence others to have the same interest also. History cannot search for the true past; however it can only share the past of one’s life and a historical event, which is a cubic history that shares much perspective about history. In theories of history, we only need the description and explanation to reason the nature of history. We would seek the knowledge that is interesting to us. In conclusion, history is the knowledge that keeps the past because the past is gone and cannot be rewind or remember which is why history keeps the significance, reasons and explanations of the past.
2. The pro of history is that it keeps us to remember the past and see a little of the future, however the con of history keeps us from being uncertain about history because there is often a bias in historical records.
3. In Hmong class, I remember when Mr. Cha talked about “Where did Hmong originated?” and no one answered. He said that the Hmong originated in China, but I said that the Chinese had no historical records of the Hmong in China. However he told me that the Hmong were classified as “Miao” in China, which Hmong people do not accept the word “Miao”, because it meant barbarian. When I went to study the history of Miao in China, I finally found where my ancestors originated from, and I acquired the history about the Hmong.
4. How can history be acquired if historians keep shaping history in their own way?
Can history justify the past?
How was history acquired?
How do you know if the people who were considered to be “Miao” were Hmong?
From my studies, the origins of the Hmong people are still disputed.
Some say that the Hmong were, as you’ve said, barbaric and lived outside of China’s borders.
Some also say that the Hmong were originally a group of people with white skin, blonde hair and blue (and green?) eyes and upon entering China, the men were slaughtered and the women were raped. Thus, the reason why there are Hmong people who have white skin even though their parents do not. Or tan skin with blue eyes. The dormant genes of the predecessors have become active.
Another scenario was that the Hmong disgusted the Chinese so much, the Chinese kicked the Hmong people out, even giving them exaggerated traits such as having webbed-feet and gills. But who am I to say it was exaggerated? I wasn’t there at the time, so what do I know? If the Hmong people really did have webbed feet and gills back then, were the Hmong aliens? Another race?
nice personal connection to Mr. Cha’s class.
What is history? History is the way of how a person claims to know the past with evidence of this claim. Evidence that it is well known by that person to share it and communicated to an entire group of other people so that there was once a past that now connects to the knowledge that this people have to prove that they were right or wrong.
Why study History? Now a days everyone studies history everywhere and it is not because we want to miss out on things that were important but because if we didn’t have a knowledge about history then this world would be lacking on knowledge. What i mean by lacking on knowledge is that sometimes for example when we were young and like i myself don’t remember when i was little then I have my parents to tell me the history of my life when I was a baby and I know they are telling me the truth because they have evidence of my history through pictures. If my parents didn’t have this evidence and acquire knowledge of the past of me then i would have meant nothing to them or i would have just simply don’t care of none of the things that happened during my young age. In studying history can also help you get out of trouble for instance when referring back to the text it said “history can be exploited by a corrupt regime to legislate its rule, justify territorial expansion and whitewash past crimes”(305) This explains why we learn history, history simply helps individuals to get out of trouble in there every day life, for example when someone gets in a fight at school and you get caught by the principle, the principle would then ask the trouble maker why he did this and then he would then response by going back and remembering why exactly did he fought with this other person and why should he not be punished.
How can the past be known? The past can be known by primary and secondary according to the reading in this chapter. Those called primary sources are sources that the main charter or person view the scene by his or her own eyes. This person or character has a better understanding of the scene and has a better perspective as well. This people have a better certainty acquire by there knowledge in the other hand those of secondary resources has knowledge acquire but because of those ideas and conclusions of the primaries. The primary can be bias this is because sometimes it is mainly focused on certain groups or ideas and not as a whole.
Writing History. In writing history there is always fallacies, evidence, truth, interpretations, experiences and many explanations. Is history better understandable by writing it or speaking it? For example in our history class, one day we were studying the Jure segregation and the Facto segregation and the teacher put speeches of different people that once experience this segregation, and we also had the speeches written in a paper. It may sense when reading out of the paper but when listening to the speeches and hearing them speaking of there past made one feel unhappy and sad. Is emotion the history of our experiences?
In this chapter of history there is a claim that there is bias and uncertainty in knowing the past. Would the present be bias or indifferent?
1. History is known due to the evidence that was presented for it. But this could be a problem due to how much evidence was presented. History is not a record of everything that happened in the past but of significance events that occured and how much people it affected. Self-realising expectations is like your own bias. If you believe something should not be change, then you wont bother helping the people who is trying to change it. History gives us an identity and so does memories. History is against propaganda because it doesn’t want to repeat itself. You can find history through all kinds of book but there is 2 types of sources, primary and secondary source. A primary source is a source that was written at the time that the event happened but a secondary source is a source that was second written after the event had happened. Some events in the past are only found in Secondary sources. Eye witness may be biased too because of one cultural background or prior knowledge to the event. A problem with primary source is that they focused on the interests of one group than groups as a whole. History can be changed by the government which is called manipulation. Historians choose what history to put in the book. The knowledge in the past may be percieved wrong from those who saw it. Hindsight is when a person knows what is the outcome of an event. An event that seemed insignificant may turn significant in the future. Hindsight bias could change a person’s perception if the person feel that there will be no other outcome for the event. There are 3 bias that mostly occurs in History. Topic choice bias may be influenced by certain occupations. Confirmation bias is when the historian put all the history that supports what she believes. national bias is when the reputation is at stake and they put what looks good for the government. Economic Determinism is the view from a ‘great person’ of knowledge. The truth of history may be determined by exploring the variety of perspectives. People can understand the past more and ourself more if we learn more about history than to go against it.
2. The claims about history is that it helps determine the future and to have better understanding of the past. But the cons is that history can be rewritten and that it is mostly based on biases.
3. I remember when my family and i was moving out of our old house, i remember packing and i saw this old gold necklace. I remember seeing it somewhere but i just don’t know where so i asked my mom about it. My mom told me that my grandpa gave it to her when they were in Laos trying to flee the Vietnamese. He gave it to her for good luck. The necklace represented freedom and courage. So my mom wore it all the time. But ever since she had my brothers and i, she gave it to me to show that i will have courage and freedom. It made me realize my identity even more than i already know. It made me think about the suffering they had in order to bring us to a better place, for us to have a better future, so i know that this was history that made me who i am.
4. How can one know what is history base on one’s beliefs?
How can one determine what is significant and not from their perspective?
How can we identify our bias as we study history? Is it the moral obligation of the historian to read from sources which challenge beliefs?
Dominic Grand Period-6
TOK Chapter Reading Response: History
When dealing with history as a way of knowing, you face knowledge issues that make you question the society that you’re living in. If the history behind it is false or the truth is bent, then you face uncertainties within that society. History is known to be the study of the past but also known to be even more complicated.
Evidence in history is extremely important because without it, we wouldn’t know if what’s being told to us is valid or invalid. We can only know about the past and past experiences through evidence. Our history actually may contain events that claim to have happened but are not thoroughly justified to the point where it is easy to believe. Significance also plays a major role in history. History is said to be a record of the past. If humanity was to record every single event that occurred then our knowledge of history would be unmanageable. That is why what’s recorded is only what’s significant. This is a major issue with knowledge because if just the significant aspects of history are being revealed then we are still being deprived from knowing about the past to an extent. Since history is complicated then it would make since to forget about it right? Well if we as human beings did that then we would lose our sense of identity that we have and understanding of how human nature works. We may ask ourselves why we stick with the past and claims about the past even if we are aware that the truth within it may be bent or false. What other choice would we have? We cannot just forget about history at all. We need some sort of memory of the past.
History is also looked at as good in supporting propaganda. Records of political history are able to determine elections or who to believe, to support and etc. If Adolf Hitler was still alive and we did not know the history behind him, it would be bad if he just so happen to run for president. We would be in danger because of not knowing any background on him. But because we do have history on political aspects within our society, it is beneficial. Then this can also go the other way. History is easy to be bent by historians and emotions are also able to affect those writing it. If a historian was writing about Obama who is our current U.S president and that historian is in a terrible mood. His emotions may affect how he perceives him and it would also affect his writing. That historian’s intention may have not been what was wanted which would be misleading to those who read what he wrote. How do we know this is not what happened in the past? We can never be too sure. Being bias in history plays a great role. There may be several different sources to read from about an event that has different points of views and sides. This would create loads of uncertainty and form different opinions in one about those events.
For a personal experience dealing with history, I was in my IB history class learning about the time period during the French and Indian war. This consisted of rivalry between colonists and the British. The way that the historical documents were written they seemed to have taken the colonists side. I was able to detect the bias within the documents. It is justified that what wanted to be done was making the colonist appear innocent prior to the British. This was especially present when I read about the Boston massacre. It stated that British mainly murdered colonist and the images I seen within the documents affected my emotions which influenced my beliefs about the British. I did realize however that it was bias so I did not let my emotions get to overpower me. The document I read was deprived of the facts that colonist actually were throwing rocks at the British, annoying them to the point where they did fire. But hearing this side of the story shapes a whole new view upon the British, a more settling and understanding view.
Knowledge issue questions
To what extent do emotions affect what is said about history?
To what extent does what we perceive affect what we believe?
To what extent do our emotions affect what we believe?
great personal example and knowledge issues.
Why Study History?
-History gives us a sense of identity
-History of defense against propaganda
-History enriches our understanding of human nature
How can the past be known?
-Primary sources
-Fallible eye-witness
-Social bias
-Deliberate manipulation
Writing History
-History is a selection of selection
-The advantage of hindsights
-The disadvantages of hindsight
The problem of bias
~Topic Choice Bias
~Conformation Bias
~National Bias
-A pluralistic approach
Theories of History
-The “great person” theory of history
-Economic determinism
-The Role of chance
Conclusion….
Economic Determinism
“The theory claims that history is determined by economic factors.” (TOK Text Pg 318)
Pros: You are able to predict the future by studying the past of the economic success.
Cons: If you were able to predict the future by the past of the economic success, then you would be able to predict the future of the economic successes, but if you knew about the future economic successes then you would “have discovered them by now instead of in the future.”
I have a bad habit of deducing possible past events that are still current, which is being judgmental. I tend to do it a lot and am not aware as much as I would like to be, but my bad habit of being judgmental also gives me the upper hand in certain situations such as when I had dropped my wallet. I had five dollars in it at the time and was a little concerned because I would then have to replace my school identification card which was ten dollars and my wallet which was five dollars. I deduced that possibly if I traced my steps back I would find it, after not finding it I deduced that some stranger had either, found it, kept the five dollars and turned in my wallet, or found it, left my five dollars and turned it in. I later found out that one of my friends, friend had found it and gave my wallet to my friend to give to me. I was certainly happy because I got everything back and didn’t lose anything that would be a pain to replace. However a situation that was particularly not the right place for me to judge was when a boy had been hurt. I didn’t realize until the ambulance came that I did notice. I asked my friend if the boy had been assaulted and that was when my friend noted that I was being judgmental, but we were waiting by a light rail train near 6 pm. Although I did not mean anything by what I asked I was just curious because I wanted to be aware of my surroundings, I apologized and asked my friend if the injury had been self-inflicted and surely enough it was. How does being judgmental help put you at an advantage and disadvantage about history?
Knowledge Questions
• To what extent does our own personal past affect how we judge the past of others?
• To what extent does a bias claim invoke the truth?
• How does the present manipulate the past?
• If the past is what created the present, then why does the present affect the past? Would that no change the present also? Or would it change the future?
• Manipulating the present creates the future, however the future will always be uncertain until it has happened, by what means do we take measure in, to alter the future into our own advantages?
Economic determinism is one possible model for predicting historical events, but what about philosophical determinism or religious determinism? Isn’t this just one more framework for interpreting history?
Intro- In simple terms History is the study of the past, yet it is way more complex than this.
*Evidence- We can only know the past to the extent we have evidence.
– Two problems arise with evidence:
1) Too much evidence, and 2) the lack of evidence
* Significance- History is only concerned with significant events in the past. And even though there is some ambiguity with the word, “significance,” there is a criteria on deciding whether an event is significant.
-Criteria: a) How many people are affected by the event
b) The extent people are affected.
* Besides evidence and significance, history is about explaining and understanding the past.
* Why study history?
a) Gives a sense of identity- not only to people but a country in general. Without history, a country would be lost and it would not have a sense of direction.
b) Defense against propaganda- There are cases in which politicians strive to manipulate the past in order to erase certain aspects of it that would benefit them in either their political careers and/or other interests.
c) Enriches our understanding of humans nature.
* How can the past be known”
– Primary Sources: These are documents that were written by someone who was there at the time of the event.
– Secondary Sources: Second hand account of what happened.
* When it comes to primary and secondary sources we find ourselves skeptical about the limitations these documents present due to the nature of the ways of knowing.
* How can the four ways of knowing distort the production of a primary source?
a) Fallible eye-witness- The perception of the accountant is likely to be shaped by their interests etc.. ( we saw the values and limitations of eye-witness during our “Perception” chapter.)
b) Social Bias: It only reflects the interests of one particular social group.
c) Deliberate Manipulation: The source is straight up manipulated by the government and other interests groups to change the “facts” of history.
* History is a selection of a selection
– Our knowledge of the past is filtered through the eyes of those who witnessed it and the selection historians often make when choosing evidence. For this reason, history is said to be a selection of a selection.
*As said before, history is about explaining and understanding it, this is precisely the job of a historian. When writing history, however, we find three problems of biases that historian may include in their accounts of the past.
– These are:
a) Topic of Choice Bias- Historians choice of topic may be influenced by current preoccupations.
b) Conformational Bias- Historians may be tempted to appeal only to the evidence that supports his own point of view and ignore any counter-evidence.
c) National Bias- Historians may find it difficult to deal objectively with sensitive issues that touch on things like national pride.
* Despite this biases, there are counter claims that lessens the problems with these three biases. These are:
a) Although a topic may be influenced, it does not mean that the topic cannot be studied objectively.
b) A good historian is likely to seek out evidence that goes against his hypothesis.
c) If historians from different background assumptions and prejudices are able to criticize one another’s work, then the most obvious biases and limitations are likely to be rooted out.
I clearly remember one of the very first lessons on my history of class during my junior year. Our teacher presented us with different primary sources regarding the events that took place just before the American Revolutionary War. We had to examine the different documents and decide who fired the first shot, either the English Army or the American Army. At first, I thought it was going to be an easy task. “How hard can it be to decide who did an action in the past?” I thought. But the more I read the sources, the more complex it seemed to reach into a conclusion. What I thought would take no longer than 30 minutes ended up taking more than one class period to conclude. I had evidence that suggested that both the English and American army had fired the first shot in the American Revolutionary War. Without even knowing back then, I was taking into account the different biases every document had, and was deciding the relevance of each primary source. During this journey to knowledge, I noticed the possibilities of fallible eye-witness and social biases that represented the interests of a particular group. At the end, I was not 100% certain to what I had concluded ( I do not remember which side I chose to be the ones who fired the first shot.) I just remember choosing that side because beyond the limitations of my bias, I used my reasoning to conclude what would be the most plausible option.
Questions:
* How does our national pride shape our interpretations of historical accounts?
*To what extent is a historian’s selection of evidence determine by the emotions s/he has on the topic?
* How does reasoning help the knower reach a higher certainty in a historical account?
If good historians seek out evidence to the contrary, is this similar to scientists using the falsification method for establishing the validity of a hypothesis?
We can start off with the question, what is history? It isn’t just the study of the past. It is the present traces of the past. History is based on evidence, significance, explanation, and understanding. It is said that a person without history is similar to a person without memories. Memories are like our identity. Without memories, you aren’t who you are. History is a defense against propaganda. Governments try to use history as a means of serving their interest. History also helps us understand the nature of humanity. History is evidence of the actions of humans. Historians use primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are sources written by people who were there at the time of the event. Secondary sources are sources written by people who were not present at the time of the event. Historians explain and interpret the past. They have to select the most important information and not the whole event. That is why history is biased. Historians choose what they believe is the most important and valuable. Economic determinism is a theory about the ‘great person’ view of history. This theory develops the idea that history is determined by economic factors. Some people even believe that history has no meaning. They think that is it controlled by chance. Even though the past does not exist, history affects our lives. That is why we need to study. It helps us understand the present and make our future better.
There are advantages and disadvantages of hindsight. Historians know the result of the event. Some events turn out to be important now compared to before and vice versa. Writing is affected by the era is it written. Each generation interprets history differently. The disadvantage of hindsight is that when you see history you think that it could have not happened any other way. The term hindsight bias means that if you would have been in that situation at that time you would have not made the mistake unlike a person who saw what happened. Hindsight is good because it allows us to see the importance of the event. But we also do not tend to understand how uncertain the past was to the people who went through it. Bias is a problem. There are three types of biases. One is called the topic choice bias. This type of bias means that the historian’s interpretations are affected by the society he/she lives in. Another type of bias is Confirmation bias. Confirmation Bias is about historians trying to choose only the evidence that supports their interpretation and not the evidence that doesn’t. National bias is when nationality affects the history. What could be worse than people beginning to find bad reasons to prove their beliefs?
I remember there was a time in history class when I was telling Ms. Bell about my troubles in learning history. I told her I couldn’t memorize all the events. But she explained to me that history could not be memorized. You have to talk about it to understand it. She also said that through teaching and talking about history, she knows so much. In our history class we are learning about slavery and how slowly slaves were freed but yet not freed. We have learned that learning the past helps us understand how and why things are like this today. History is important even if there are biases. Biases help us see the significance and learn the point of views of both sides.
To what extent does history play a role in our society? How does selection affect the perception of the audience? How does classification develop our knowledge of history? To what extent can we justify history? What are the limitations of biases?
You mentioned you couldn’t memorize history, to what Ms. Bell replied by saying that history was not about memorization but rather about talking about it. Do you think in this case, language is more effective than reasoning in acquiring knowledge?
What role does reasoning have in establishing causation between historical events?
is there a way for history to not have bias?
No selectivity required.
Friday we had a great discussion (once I exited) about how history is shaped. Well-done! I thought the excitement, insights, and questions were right on, and your discussion showed maturity and intellectual curiosity.