The Purpose Of History

To think like a historian, I think, is based on past, event in history so many questions what happen in the past that cause event who was affected was there turning point decision made in history that affected our past or present. Dating back the pass brings many questions is like puzzle no idea where the event happened, who was involved, what was affected, when did it occur.

Famous monuments like the Abraham Lincoln memorial, Mount Rushmore, or the Statue of liberty had a purpose when first built. Monuments were created to memorialize the person’s achievements and what they have done to help other people. Monuments captured many people’s attention and amazed them by its design. When monuments are built, they contribute to history and can teach later generations of how they contributed to the world. Each monument had a purpose, the design had to be great, and the location had to immersive.

Monuments in the US should be taken down and here is my reason why. One of the things I think that Monuments should be taken down is because most of them have very dark parts of our history. One reason why is that some “monuments have some racial offencenses and make some our citizen uncomfortable”. (brophy) and that's not really good for the public we want citizens to be comfortable in our country.

The History Manifesto, the ‘rallying cry’ for the historical field, drew attention to what ought to have been the methodology and research method of choice. This reanalysis of such a fundamental aspect of history came, contrary to the overt argument of Jo Guldi and David Armitage as a result of increasing global concerns and short-term thinking of professionals worldwide, but rather in part to the increased use of digital technology and media in scholarly work. The History Manifesto called for a return to the longue-duree in historical work, as a supposed superior historical method over that of the short-term. Further, the manifesto’s call for increased digital media use ignored the fundamental problems associated with the use of digital technology

To begin with, one of my reasons why I say that we should tear down the monuments is not to recreate the past. The reason why I say that is because in the past, many things happen to black people such as slavery and they’ve been dealing with segregation for a long time. For instance, in Charlottesville over the past weekend, there was a protest between a group of KKK, neo Nazi, and white supremacists fighting and chanting “you will not replace us.” We should tear it down so people won’t be able to think about the past and start to say a fight and say hateful things about other races. Some of the people in the world don’t like people going against one of another and wish that all the people could come together and make peace. That’s one of the reasons as to why I say that we

Historians, in a sense, work for society; therefore, what they owe to the public is explanations, not necessarily entertainment. They owe the people the truth of what took place, what happened as a result, why it took place, and how it affects or relates to people today, for the betterment of society as a whole. The truth in history is what we personally allow ourselves to believe what is true or not true. Each of our own personal experiences and life situations help shape what we believe to be true, so the truth in history is what we make it to be by believing, or not believing, in studies, texts, papers, or research conducted by historians. Historians should always aim to find the “truth,” but it is up to us as the people, to believe or reject that

History by definition is the study of past events particularly in human affairs, where Historiography, its associated domain, is defined as the study of historical writing and perspective. In terms of my historic philosophy, history itself is the study of the past and the application of lessons learned by our ancestors in the present day, a vessel for the knowledge that has been handed down through generations. History allows us to establish perspective on our own lives and how our way of life came to be. Thus, it must be written and observed with an objective and unbiased lens, because establishing a valid historical perspective of the accounts and stories recounted by either side of any historical quagmire is the most important skill in the

I think historians have to use information they obtain from different primary and secondary sources. But first, they have to evaluate those sources and listen to other people’s opinions about the sources.

Historians are influenced by countless features of their lives. As a part of any race, gender, religion, nationality, time period, political identity or social class they have a unique world view. These factors may help them see a primary or secondary resource in a new light and gain a fuller understanding of the situation. Their views can also cause historians to overlook important features in resources or fail to recognize a particular side of the issue. Historians can broaden their horizons by studying groups that they do not understand. They must keep in mind that these resources also have all of these influences acting on them. They are only a small piece of the puzzle. Historians must never accept and resource as fact without analyzing it. Among all the competing influences a historian is always searching for a new angle and a fuller understanding of events.

When analyzing a historical event, ideally information is required to be traced back in both quantitative and qualitative variables. History could be easily manipulated, misinterpret and biased. For a particular historical event, many claims could be laid out with certain amount of evidence. For example, many historians claim that the Holocaust did not happen and the conspiracy theory that America did not plan on the moon. The reality that anyone is able to propose various theories that contradicts what may seem as ‘facts’ to others proves that there are multiple perspective that needs critical analysis. Historians evaluates the evidence proposed, they

In the history of the United States, there was a conflict because of controversy over slavery and states’ rights. This was the Civil War, when the southern states seceded from the United States because they believed they should keep slavery. The Civil War carried on from 1861 to 1865. In this time period, both sides had leaders that they looked up to such as the North having Ulysses S. Grant, and the South with Robert E. Lee. Usually with leaders people look up to they wish to memorialize them, thus the memorials of these people come to be. Now in the present there are issues involving such statues, groups of people that believe the monuments shouldn’t be displayed are vandalizing and in some cases desecrating these statues because they feel they are racist. In my opinion, I believe the statues should stand as a reminder for history to not repeat itself. I feel that if the public does allow this, then where does it stop? Is there some way to compromise instead of removing them completely?

The people who put these monuments up did not tell the story on how these slaves were beaten to death and treated with not even a piece of equality. They showed the story on how these people were “heroes” who “fought” for America when in reality all they really did was fight against it. Monuments like this that disrespected the past should be taken down because it is offensive and very disrespectful to the future today and to the people who it affected in the past. Instead of making monuments about people who did bad things in the past they should make monuments about people who suffered in the past and they should be honored.

Primary sources are those sources that are the evidence that an event occurred or about a certain time in history. Artwork, court documents, eyewitness accounts and interviews, meeting minutes, census data, maps, personal journals and diaries are some examples of primary sources. The purpose of these sources is to give the researcher the first-hand experience of what, when where, and/or why something happened. These sources give a first-hand account of the event.

The job of a historian is put themselves in the shoes of those who have documented certain events in history. Through these first-hand accounts a historian paints a picture of a particular moment and attempts to prove a point. There are many pitfalls that must be avoided during this process. A historian is able to overcome these obstacles by being skeptical of the information that is already provided and by keeping an objective view throughout the process. It is easy for a historian to be overcome by bias and not analyze their sources with a neutral point of view. The most successful ones are able to report their findings accurately and in a way that supports their argument. The Bay of Pigs is a controversial event that has piqued

The contextualization of the monuments must be done with careful consideration, as for how they are contextualized will affect how the public views and understands the place the monuments have in society and history. Also, it will determine how future historians view society and the current standards and beliefs held today. There are four different schools of thought for history and it is important to look at each individually for a historian to help contextualize the monuments.