Historical Events With Objectivity And Skepticism

Some people look at history as a boring subject, but that’s because they haven’t thought of it like a marvelous tale of action, drama, tragedy, and whole lot of chaos. By thinking of it that way, it will make the subject much more interesting.

Is history always the way it has been told, or are there multiple truths that meet in one point and intersect? Presentism is what modern historians do to the past. The way in which presentism reveals and formats information about history is simplified and modified. This, for the most part, is not the exact way these events took place. Important parts and concepts are changed in order to fit into modern views and interpretation. Many historians are accepting of either the victim's or perpetrator's side. Sometimes picking one particular side may skew the hard facts of the situation or event. Failure of telling the accurate past can lead

History is often fabricated and told in a way that is appealing to youth and descendants. History is often told from “white eyes” Loewen suggest that it be told through red eyes to provide true insight in what has formed our country. “One does not start from point zero, but from minus ten” (Loewens 93). High School students are presented information in a biased way. Students are not always taught how to view a situation through another perspective. Students are only able to view a situation based on how they have lived or what they know best. When teaching history of the world teachers often teach harsh situations from the past in ways that are fabricated. “If we look Indian history squarely in the eye, we are going to get red eyes” (Loewen 95). In this statement Loewen suggest that if a reader looks at a situation “squarely” the reader will develop “red eyes” that open the reader up to reality of our decedents and the

History class in itself has a specific purpose which seems to be frequently forgotten. We learn about violent and horrible events in our past, as well as life- changing and positively impacting ones. From the negative events, we learn what went wrong and how to prevent similar tragedies from happening. From the positive, we gather knowledge and comprehension of the basis of our modern society. We are a self- repairing race, analyzing every flaw and figuring out what caused it. It's an ancient practice, trial and error is human nature.

History can be an intricate and laborious subject to teach and learn. James W. Loewen, author, historian, and sociologist, is the perfect example of someone who appreciates the subject in all aspects, but knows how underestimated it is. As he says in Lies My Teacher Told Me, “Our educational media turn flesh-and-blood individuals into pious, perfect creatures without conflicts, pain, credibility, or human interest” (Loewen 11). Throughout the book, he further elucidated the idea of that quote by introducing particular topics that deserved more details and acknowledgement. Loewen argues with enough reasoning from numerous textbooks that the writers aren’t involving all facts that should be included to inform the students. Nearly all points

Some would say society around the world as a whole has evolved into a self-serving society. Through teaching the historical events of the ancestors this may help curtail the negative attitude that is running rampant today. It is vitality important that we have scholars who will continue researching and documenting history.

By teaching only the happy-go-lucky versions of history, people are not able to learn from previous ancestors’ mistakes and, instead, are more prone to causing history to repeat itself through their own ignorant

History is such a significant thing in the United Sates, and to our counterparts all over around the world. It has many purposes that help advance us, and it creates a source to learn from what was successful and unsuccessful. History in simpler terms is a preservation of thought during a certain period of time, documented by a person. This is why, it is important to think about how history has currently been documented and written. Often the source of our history comes from a person on one side, which usually is the more privileged side. This privileged side is able to fabricate a perfected image of themselves, and leave out the details of people with different perspectives. This is why I agree strongly with Robert Zinn’s Quote on history, and I believe that because of the amount of subjectivity in history there is not a such thing as impartial history.

After reading The Betrayal of History, I realize that most information that I have learned in history classes are incorrect. I believed that the historian is the only one who rewrites events in the history books. Also, I realized the author of the book is not the only one who writes facts and historical information on the book, but it turns out that others people and organization are controlling the publishing companies, and they have the ability to edit any information and events that they do not agree with. It is weird they do not want children to learn some words like imagine because it is similar to magic.

The idea of history as a subjective collection of malleable information rather than a gathering of facts confused me as a child. As I grew up, I learned about the effect of culture and context on information and the way it is spread, written, and remembered, and often incorporated this belief into my classwork. The idea of something as both a product of and contributor to its culture and the way that culture shifts its interpretation slowly over time has always been particularly interesting to me. At the time, I had no clue that this way a key concept in new historical criticism, but, then again, I think everyone in our class has repeatedly said that we had not realized that we were using different forms of criticism throughout our careers

There’s no secret to teaching history well or making it interesting. Barbara Tuchman summed up what every teacher, parent, and writer should know in two words: “Tell stories.” E.M. Forster gave a wonderful definition of “story.” If you say that the king died and then the queen died of grief, then that becomes a story, because it calls for empathy on the part of both the storyteller and the listener. We need historians who have the heart and humanity necessary to help students imagine the lives of people who have lived in the past and were just as human as we are today.

History is not unchangeable due to events in the ever-changing present. There are differences in how history is taught due to current events for example the teaching of slavery in America was very much influenced by the Civil Rights Movement. It is interesting how the “nation’s lens on the past changes.” The first example given by Hochschild is of Russian. From the 1920s to late 80s history was largely focused on the glories of communism and the failures of other systems, with the bloody purges of the Stalin era being largely erased. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia constantly had pages replaced and destroyed. In the 60s, 70s and 80s he saw discrepancies between private and public histories. There was no discussion

For a historicist historian, the purpose of history is to show what actually happened in the past. This can be found out with sources and past records. Once enough information is found, the historians can use it to recreate the past and by learning about it as a study they are able to use what they learn to recreate it with objectivity. After these historians are able to recreate the past from all of their research, they will discuss it with other historians, who have studied the discipline, and come up with the only true interpretation of the event. By finding the sole interpretation, these historians are able to accurately state what happened as, “the strict presentation of the facts, contingent and unattractive though they may be, is undoubtedly

The historical event represent in my picture was the first man to walk on the moon. On July 20th,1969, Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon. Apollo 11 was the name of the mission. Neil Armstrong stayed on the moon for 21 hours. At the time the Soviet Union and the United States were competing in a space race. This historical event put America in the lead of the

Before answering the question, “should historical event be judged by the standards of their time?” we must understand what it is asking. A historical event can be defined as an event that happened in the past but is relevant today and has influence on the present. When we judge something we form a conclusion or opinion about it, so when we judge using the standards of another time period we are forming an opinion using the common or normal ideas of that era. The question can be rephrased as, “should we make conclusions about past events according to the common ideas of the era in which the event happened?”