When trying to reconstruct the past, we must overcoming temptation to change history for the better as well as the difficulty with lack of evidence, and focus on history itself. In C. Vann Woodward's "On Believing What One Reads: The Dangers of Popular Revisionism", he believes it is up to historians (keeping in mind that we are all historians) to not manipulate history. He defines History as "a travesty upon the unborn." (37). A travesty is a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something; thus, according to Woodward, History is a distorted representation of something put upon (taught) to the unborn (future generations). They are unborn, but we can guarantee them they will not learn accurate history. Woodward says that it is not entirely the historian's fault; a lot of it is the government. He shows that dictatorship is a straightforward way nations have attempted to control the past by editing old texts along with controlling the propaganda to point people in the direction they wanted them to go as far as beliefs, ideas, and just about anything (35-36). Woodward also gives examples of more subtle "ways of controlling the past and controlling the historian(s) that write the past." (36). These examples include: "the classification of documents", the "control of archives", the "putting the historian on the pay-roll", and "the publication of archives of selected evidence and testimony" (36-37). Wait, do you mean to tell me that the American government could be, and could have already been for quite some time now, altering documents or archives in an attempt to control the past? Oh I am sure they have done more than just that, but why? Possibly, just because they can, and well, its 'for the better'.
They might want to change history to cover up mistakes, or to create or emphasize events to make us look good. Either way, we are making a mistake: we are altering history. Now this may sound unthinkable, but just as Dr. Hillmer told us the other day, "Sometimes we just do things. We know they're wrong, but we do them anyway. Because that's who we are." And despite the depressing feeling of guilt that rushes over us after hearing that, we must get over our sensitivity and realize that it is true; we all make mistakes.
Challenge #1: Lack of Evidence. From the very beginning Woodward says, "American's expect too much of history" (25). He goes on to explain that Americans tell all these "tall tales" (i.e., conspiracy theories, legends, myths, etc.) just because we want to have an interesting history like everyone else, but history has to be more important to Americans than just "a source of the folk-lore, myth, and legend that seems essential to the spiritual comfort of a people in time of stress." (Woodward 26). People must realize that History does in fact have some truth to it and we need to respect that truth. We should avoid being "Myth-hungry and legend-starved" Americans, and focus on being dignified historians. Instead of creating conspiracy theories about September 11, 2001 or creating legends about Abraham Lincoln we must try to stop taking away people's history like "the red Indian," mentioned in Woodward's article and use the actual evidence we have to confirm facts of all of our history. Remember that there is a limited amount of evidence in the world to prove the past because (as of now) we have no tool that can prove everything; therefore, be patient.
Then again, where does all this evidence or 'proof' come from? How can we be sure that those archives were not tampered with as Woodward mentions in his article, or how do we know they are not just publishing old text at special times for political propaganda? All we can do is try to keep our eyes open for political propaganda, keep ourselves well educated, and just expect it. If the government tells us that Switzerland is hacking into all of our systems and stealing classified documents, (first of all we should question our national security but then) we just have to remember that Switzerland is a neutral country, has never harmed us before, and maybe we should check the facts behind this newspaper headline before we start babbling off to our friends about it over morning coffee.
Challenge #2: Resisting Temptation. Woodward states that "putting the historian on the pay-roll" is one of the subtle ways of controlling the past, but then he says that he himself was once put on a pay-roll. I do not think it would be right to tell historians they can not get paid because, especially after all that hard work, that would be quite unfortunate for them and not very inspirational. If you are a historian and you take cash, do not fret! I agree that historians should receive that paycheck for all of their labors, but they must remember to stay true to their profession and its moral obligations.
Woodward concludes that:
As custodian of the past and keeper of the public memory, the historian under modern conditions fulfills an even more responsible and vital role--that of guardian of the future. To defend the integrity of history, as well as his own integrity, the historian must, therefore, forever contest with 'those who control the present' (Woodward 37).
I do believe that if you are a historian it is your duty to the people to (to the best of your ability) confirm the truth despite the difficulty to acquire evidence or the temptation to alter things. It is what should be done not just because otherwise you are messing with the education of many people in the future, but because its what is right.
They might want to change history to cover up mistakes, or to create or emphasize events to make us look good. Either way, we are making a mistake: we are altering history. Now this may sound unthinkable, but just as Dr. Hillmer told us the other day, "Sometimes we just do things. We know they're wrong, but we do them anyway. Because that's who we are." And despite the depressing feeling of guilt that rushes over us after hearing that, we must get over our sensitivity and realize that it is true; we all make mistakes.
Challenge #1: Lack of Evidence. From the very beginning Woodward says, "American's expect too much of history" (25). He goes on to explain that Americans tell all these "tall tales" (i.e., conspiracy theories, legends, myths, etc.) just because we want to have an interesting history like everyone else, but history has to be more important to Americans than just "a source of the folk-lore, myth, and legend that seems essential to the spiritual comfort of a people in time of stress." (Woodward 26). People must realize that History does in fact have some truth to it and we need to respect that truth. We should avoid being "Myth-hungry and legend-starved" Americans, and focus on being dignified historians. Instead of creating conspiracy theories about September 11, 2001 or creating legends about Abraham Lincoln we must try to stop taking away people's history like "the red Indian," mentioned in Woodward's article and use the actual evidence we have to confirm facts of all of our history. Remember that there is a limited amount of evidence in the world to prove the past because (as of now) we have no tool that can prove everything; therefore, be patient.
Then again, where does all this evidence or 'proof' come from? How can we be sure that those archives were not tampered with as Woodward mentions in his article, or how do we know they are not just publishing old text at special times for political propaganda? All we can do is try to keep our eyes open for political propaganda, keep ourselves well educated, and just expect it. If the government tells us that Switzerland is hacking into all of our systems and stealing classified documents, (first of all we should question our national security but then) we just have to remember that Switzerland is a neutral country, has never harmed us before, and maybe we should check the facts behind this newspaper headline before we start babbling off to our friends about it over morning coffee.
Challenge #2: Resisting Temptation. Woodward states that "putting the historian on the pay-roll" is one of the subtle ways of controlling the past, but then he says that he himself was once put on a pay-roll. I do not think it would be right to tell historians they can not get paid because, especially after all that hard work, that would be quite unfortunate for them and not very inspirational. If you are a historian and you take cash, do not fret! I agree that historians should receive that paycheck for all of their labors, but they must remember to stay true to their profession and its moral obligations.
Woodward concludes that:
As custodian of the past and keeper of the public memory, the historian under modern conditions fulfills an even more responsible and vital role--that of guardian of the future. To defend the integrity of history, as well as his own integrity, the historian must, therefore, forever contest with 'those who control the present' (Woodward 37).
I do believe that if you are a historian it is your duty to the people to (to the best of your ability) confirm the truth despite the difficulty to acquire evidence or the temptation to alter things. It is what should be done not just because otherwise you are messing with the education of many people in the future, but because its what is right.
Recent Comments