The Historians Task Is To Understand The Past

This paper deals with ways history can be interpreted and influences different interpretations have on society and individuals. This is explored through

As the hostility grows between both parties, historians must consider the factual disposition of their writings. Empiricist J.B. Bury stated that history is a “science, nothing more, nothing less”. The accurate connotations that science brings highlights the academics arguments. Although not completely a science, history integrates different forms of science, such as geology, in order to reach the objective truth (Evans). It is the assertion of history as a science to which academics believe their history is presented. To which, academic’s believe their rival’s representation of history is inaccurate, and therefore invalid. Academic historians insistence to their own superiority may contend to their tension between

Historians, as we normally perceive bear the responsibility as scholars who record and research about past events and compiled them together in order to benefit the future generations as an authoritative channel for them to understand and study the past of human kind. Nevertheless, these missions were hardly the main

Not all is known and the facts passed down may not reveal the whole truth. History is biased and can easily be manipulated by those with more power, and it is a modern historian’s job to weed through the commonly accepted information, and try to find the truth. If the truth is not found, then they present alternative theories to broaden the world’s knowledge on the possible course of events in the

To Howard Zinn, history is no more than a looking glass for historians to see what needs to change in the modern world. Zinn explains how historians should see the past and the future in his 1966 essay “Historian as Citizen”. He begins by stating that historians cling too tightly to the patterns of the past and are wrong in using them as a guide to the future. He says, “This necessariness of the past tends to infect our thinking about the future, weighing down our disposition to act” (Zinn 44). Already, Zinn makes a broad statement that counters the aged ways of historians everywhere. He is asking them to let go of history. This is offputting to some but it is his strong voice that makes his philosophy so grand.

History is the totality of all past human events, and historiography is the written record of what is known about our lives and societies. In the recent past, history lessons were meant to convey a certain patriotism or to turn an immigrant into a “true American,” but today too many historians are using historical analysis for political purposes. This probably dates to the tumultuous times of the 1960s. Gordon Wood offers a prescription for the proper use of history. Shunning the ideologues of today, he believes historians should “seek to study past events not to make trans-historical generalizations about human behavior but to understand those events as they actually were, in all their peculiar contexts and circumstances.”

“History is the study of any past or present happening or events for which there is physical, written or oral evidence available to substantiate the happenings or events. Some students of history have difficulty with their motivation for the subject because they cannot identify with the personal value of history” (A Guide to Critical Thinking in the Social Studies 1). Clearly, there are many approaches to the study of an era or theme, but those most frequently relied upon in all levels of education are those which seek to present facts, documented from a wide number of sources, primary and secondary, as objectively as possible, a practice which detaches students from their studies and seemingly takes the “story” out of history. Relying upon

History is considered to be one of the subjects in the vast sea of subject that explains not only about the past but also provide us a lot of wisdom. It is a list of events that occurred in the past. Moreover, it provides us with such a vast perspective of the occurrences that happened long back. Nevertheless, we came to know that everything has its own history, whether it is a new development of technology, or development in the field of science, or the introduction of some reforms in religion.

Humanities and the social sciences are two very important components for growth as both individuals and as a society. They are especially essential to the evolution of humans and the progression of knowledge. It is because of the documentation of previous human experiences that future generations gain a personalized understanding of how history really happened. That personalized understanding also allows us to attain new levels of insight on politics, poetry and everything in between. Having insight on the past provides us with clarity, which is how we are able to learn and grow from historical occurrences, and move on to a better and more advanced future. This is how our knowledge progresses. Sadly, humanities and social sciences

This is not a new issue, as faulty perceptions and interpretations were at the forefront of the warnings of which Descartes described hundreds of years ago. In order to compensate for inconsistencies in perception and interpretations, Thelin feels modern researchers and historians need to doubt documented history and unearth data that may have been forgotten or overlooked. Thelin believes that history does indeed matter, and stresses that even basic facts such as names, dates, and numbers need to be corroborated and not just taken at face

history is handled, and the role of science. There are many important differences between the

Humans are an interesting species because of the strong need humans have to fully understand what it truly means to be human. Many fields such as history, psychology, and sociology all offer a perspective in the study of humanity, but there are distinguishable from anthropology. Anthropology differs from other humanities fields due to its holistic nature, comparative research methods, and the strong emphasis on fieldwork and participant interaction. Anthropology is the study of people throughout the world, their evolutionary history, how they behave, adapt to different environments, communicate and socialize with one another. In order for anthropologists to examine the full scope of human life, they employ the four field approach that embodies the holistic nature of the field.

Anthropology is the social sciences discipline that looks to understand humanity. In this discipline there are subdivisions such as cultural anthropology and primatology, and the beauty of anthropology is that you can more than you think, link some of your life event to some anthropological context.

Politically we are confronted with a host of issues ranging from matters pertaining to local taxation, planning, and zoning to regional (if not global) terrorism and other manifestations of conflict. The study of geography allows us to participate and enjoy our planet. Geography gives us a sense of reference to where we live and where we may be going in relationship to where we have been. Its appreciation of the world we live in. Anthropology is the study of human kind and culture, everybody wants to know where and how humans came to be. Some examples we can apply anthropology in our daily lives would be in relating to our families, friends, co-workers, in understanding work dynamics, in understanding and communicating with teens,, and in proposing new ideas, and plans. Its unique contribution to studying the bonds of human social relations been the distinctive concept of culture.

What is History? This is the question posed by historian E.H. Carr in his study of historiography. Carr debates the ongoing argument which historians have challenged for years, on the possibility that history could be neutral. In his book he discusses the link between historical facts and the historians themselves. Carr argues that history cannot be objective or unbiased, as for it to become history, knowledge of the past has been processed by the historian through interpretation and evaluation. He argues that it is the necessary interpretations which mean personal biases whether intentional or not, define what we see as history. A main point of the chapter is that historians select the facts they think are significant which ultimately