Chris Anderson
Professor Paul Hillmer
HIS 212
2 September 2010
History Will Never be Right
Historians have a difficult job because the parameters they work in are constantly changing. As research continues to be done, and more evidence is found that both supports new findings, and disproves previous finding, our thoughts of history must also change with this evidence. All historical evidence is malleable and is subject to scrutiny by any challenging party that can make a substantial case. These are the problems that historians are always facing.
In order for a historian to present something as fact, they must find evidence that proves it. Without anything backing it up, the information is nothing more than some guy making superfluous claims, not stating historical facts. When a historian tries to write about something he didn't witness himself, these claims become much more difficult to substantiate, which I find to be the biggest difficulty in this field.
When I read a new book about the revolutionary war, from my favorite author that just turned fifty, it is pretty clear he is not writing these detailed battle scenes based on his own personal experience. To start his book, he must first research the topic and compile evidence. Given the time gap, there is no way for this author to interview anyone that was in the battle themselves. This gap is where the disparities begin. When the historian approaches his research, he is basing all of his own learning on what others wrote, which they had to research. This circle is what causes the accepted truth to continue to move further and further from what actually happened. As authors take liberties with the evidence they use, or try to connect certain pieces by making assumptions that they decide make sense, differences appear between what is written down and what can be proven to have happened.
The use of others research is not a bad thing at all. Humans continue to move forward because they can use the previous work of their predisecors and don't need to make each discover over for themselves. The problems start to happen when cracks form in the process. Anyone can publish whatever thoughts they have without consistently providing the substantial evidence that they based these thoughts off of. As soon as another historian comes along and chooses an article that wasn't proven to be factual, his article becomes not entirely based on fact. The solution can only be achieved through providing a means of proofing all published works and cross examining them against what can and has been proven as accepted facts in history. What happens then when everyone accepts a fact, papers are written using this evidence, the circle continues and papers are written based on these papers, then new evidence is found disproving all these previously factually based research projects? They are all void.
The ultimate answer to the question of how to ensure all history is correct and factual is that this perfect world does not and will not ever exist. What was said and done yesterday is already today's' history. I could write a completely factual (based on the best of my knowledge and research available to me) paper about what the queen of England ate for lunch yesterday. Five years from now documents could be discovered showing the menu I read was actually declined by her majesty and she chose to eat something completely different. This is a case where someone that went and checked my work for accuracy to use it in their own research a year after I wrote it would have found no evidence disproving my thoughts, but someone coming six years later would see that both my paper and those following mine and believing it are wrong.
What we use as historical evidence is completely based on context. Whatever the masses believe and accept becomes fact, whatever they decline or choose not to accept is discarded as false and not looked back on. This is the way all history is relayed. From generation to generation we must make a conscious choice to agree on what will be taught to our children, because by the time they are choosing what they want to pass down to their children our opinions will be irrelevant, our choices on what is historically relevant will be obsolete, and how the world was viewed when it was viewed from our paradigm will be little more than a skewed view of what was once, and never will be again.
Recent Comments