History Class

[Ghost101]

So I'm a fan of war historical novels, historical fiction, basically anything that has to relate to war history. I was talking with my last year's A.P. Chemistry teacher who brought up a point that I thought was interesting. I'm very narrow-minded in terms of knowledge, sure I'm smart, but I sometimes lack in common sense or am slow on the uptake concerning some obvious aspects.

The main reason I was bringing up this thread was because of the point my A.P. Chemistry teacher made concerning war history.

"History is never truly complete. Your version of history is different than some other country's version. Japan has a different intake on WWII than do the Germans. The Cold War through the eyes of the Britain's will always be unlike that of the Americans."

Those were his paraphrased words that I could recall. He said he felt war history was not real, it was incomplete, fake. The history you learned is created by your country, only one perspective. Therefore it is wrong since it does not include the other perspectives, which may be the correct version, but no, your country teaches you their version.

I wanted to know if anyone had any comments on this. I futilely tried to combat his arguments with my own, but failed as he kept bringing up more references. Since I believe the main problem was that History is created by the victors. The people who win the war for example are the ones that create history.

Enjoy...

[Rota]

The history books are written by the victors. There will always be bias when talking about war. It's hard to be truly objective, since human nature makes you kind of "choose sides" before you even put pen to paper.

Germans were the bad guys in WW2, but what if they had won?
If Germany had conquered Europe, then history books would refer to the old world monarchies of Europe as the rebels that were defeated. The Nazi's would be the good guys in the history books of the Reich.

[Ghost101]

That's exactly what I was thinking at the time, can you imagine what would've happened to history if Germans and Japanese won? Victors are going to make themselves to be justified in the fight, but if we were to read from the perspective of the losers, are they going to be justified as well? Just a thought.

[Nesterus]

When it comes to history you have to be objective, you need to find as many sources concerning one subject as possible and then you have to realize that each author had their own motives and in some senses were trying to please this regime or another when writing their prospective histories.

[Rota]

Let's just look at a fictional battle...

Army A was struggling to hold the line against Army B. A desperate call for help was made to a nearby unit. A runner was sent get reinforcements. The reinforcements arrived just as army B was cresting the hill for the final push that would break the defense of army A. The valiant saviors charged into the line and won the day. This famous charge was hailed in song, stories were told, and they were heroes well known to many generations of army A.

Now, what if those heroic reinforcements arrived just a half hour later? Now army B does break the defense, and crushed the reinforcements? The entire story of the runner and the reinforcements would be not be known. the history books could not record the tale, because nobody who knew what happened lived to tell.


The point is that details of the battle from the losing side will never be known, simply because they lost. It's very hard to truly write history from the perspective of the loser. You may write with a bias toward the loser, but the perspective of the loser is a lot harder.

[BS.]

It's as simple as looking at Thucidides and his history of the Pelopennesian War. In Thucidides forward he clearly states his desire to make his history the most accurate and correct history the world had ever scene. However, the very name itself prove it's bias, even if it is extremely slight, for the Thucidides was an Athenian and was from the region of Attica. The name Peloppenesian War came about because when Sparta and it's allies from the Peloponnese in Greece and made war on him he had to write from the perspective he was given.

This notion of bias is not something that is intentional and therefore "bad." It is simply saying that you can't trust history because even a man such as Thucidides who set out to make the most accurate history of his time is forever going to have a sway towards where he's from. Sure he might get the information from both sides and sure he might try his hardest to remain impartial, but it is simply human nature to put our own swing on things.

So i agree with Rota and Neseteerouus that history has to be viewed with a grain of salt. However, i don't believe that it is an intentional misdeed by the victors but rather simply an unavoidable aspect of human literary undertakings,especially when factors for not one story of events but uncountable ones are present.

[Richie_B]

Rep me if this helped your argument. I'm going for my second green!

Some people will see this, and try to put you on your way to your first red.

Last year, my History teacher told the class to always answer questions objectively, but when it came to sections of the course like Irish history, it was inevitable that our answers would be somewhat subjective. So the first step in historical accuracy in my opinion is to rid yourself with all personal bias on the subject at hand. The next thing would be to try and compile information from as many sources as possible, although you will never find out every piece of information due to the lack of (every) perspective from both sides. (As Rota pointed out.) Therefore, the best you can do is use the information that is actually available, instead of trying to hypothesise what might have happened. Finally, when writing out your answer from the sources, you need to appreciate that the author had their own agenda and personal bias. (As Nesterus stated.) It may be difficult to ascertain whether a source is reputable or not, so the more sources you get, the greater the accuracy. Due to all these factors, I believe true historical accuracy is hard to obtain.

[Nesterus]

Mispelling the name of Nesterus is a red reppable offense

[Hehe]

I had an argument similar to this with one of my teachers once...

We always debated, it was just what we did. Every opportunity, I started a debate. I still do It was just to try and ease the boredom of school (though not because of the reasons that most would think. It was simply because everyone else learned SO slowly (from my perspective)). Anyway, that's irrelevant, just a bit of background.

He said that EVERYTHING was biased. It was impossible to write an unbiased account. I disagreed, saying that it is perfectly possible. He said that it was physically impossible, because anything we wrote would be tainted with our thoughts, and therefore bias.

A few minutes after class I realised another way I could prove him wrong, but that's irrelevant.

The point is, he was right, to an extent. While writing 2+2=4 is a completely unbiased record of it, when writing an essay, or a book, or anything which wasn't simply right or wrong, it's impossible to be unbiased. Your thoughts will always get onto that page and swing it one way or another.

History is the same principal. While we would (well, I would) consider it a very scary thought indeed to be living under Nazi rule, if we WERE under Nazi rule, we would consider it terrifying to be anything else.

The final thing I'll say is that that is the way perspective works. It changes so easily, and sometimes the thought of it being so easily changed is frightening, but it does happen. That's why (getting slightly off-topic) you always have to fight (not necessarily physically, in fact, almost certainly not) for what you believe. Others will try to change your mind, but you have to remember and hold onto the reason you thought what you thought in the first place.

[Nesterus]

A few minutes after class I realised another way I could prove him wrong, but that's irrelevant.

The point is, he was right, to an extent.

make up your mind