|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
In another thread (Mogambo) wseiber has written about a friend of his, claiming that all previous history had been "colored" by the views of historians, and he wanted to reveal "the truth"..
Oh, Dear! - wseiber, I don't suppose you would have any success in trying to stop your friend - and maybe it is a therapy that he needs for his own purposes, but please try to stop him from publishing!
There are few things in life more sorrow-making than someone trying to subvert History to be a hand-maiden of the truth.
History is, generally speaking, very subjective. I cannot, having searched my mind for a full twenty-five seconds, think of any example of an event in the past that I could categorize as being "the truth."
Any "historical" event you like to name, I think, is capable of being interpreted in at least two ways - usually many more than that.
I am trying to work out, in my own mind, whether WAR, in the most general sense of the word, is an indisputable fact, but I feel that it depends on which participant in the action that you talk to, as to whether it is a "war", "oppression", "liberation", "a police action", or whatever. And these are not necessarily just eupemistic wasy of expressing the same thing, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Depressing, but seemingly truthful analysis.
Surely, however, if a historian stated that 'so and so' died, it would be a fact? When that person died might be more open to dispute, but not the fact of death. Or birth perhaps (by definition if you died you must have been born at some stage)?
I know this is pretty unprepossessing as a basis for a study of history, but it might be a start. The Achaean civilisation is pretty obviously over. That's a fact. So is the Harappa civilisation, as is the dynasty of Hammurabi, and so on. Perhaps the dispute lies in interpretations of why rather than whether?
cheer
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Surely, however, if a historian stated that 'so and so' died, it would be a fact?
Hi Shanks,
Here we are again.. But I don't think we need to start thus far back. A self-respecting historian is not content with mentioning that so-and-so died. He leaves that to a coroner. It's when the isolated facts are being put into some order, some connection, that the trouble starts (even before hypothesising about causes). And: Today you read in the news that, together with a well-known judge, his driver and his body-guard were killed by a bomb. But will this precision be preserved over the next 100 years? And should it? Which part will be kept as essential?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Today you read in the news that, together with a well-known judge, his driver and his body-guard were killed by a bomb. But will this precision be preserved over the next 100 years? And should it? Which part will be kept as essential?
Good points. Which is why history will always be controversial. My point was only to show that full-on relativism (or extreme relativism) is, perhaps, too pessimistic. Certainly, any analysis will be tainted with the editorial veiwpoint, but there is a distinction between analysis, and fact. (Yes? No? Maybe?)
cheer
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
any analysis will be tainted with the editorial veiwpoint...
I'm a little uncertain about this as a principle...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Perhaps a sweeping judgement by me - but as wsieber points out, there is virtually an infinite number of details attached to any event. Not all can be recorded, and even fewer can be reported. Who decides what? The reporter as editor, presumably. On what basis does the reporter decide? On his/her particular historical theory.
For instance, a public figure is assassinated. There is only one reporter on the scene.
1. The reporter has a Marxist view of history. The public figure is described in terms of his status in the class structure. The act is de-individualised, being represented as the 'will' of a class of people bubbling up and taking concrete shape. If this is the only report published, posterity will know nothing of the individual assassin.
2. The reporter follows something like the 'great man' theory of history. His/her report takes the shape of a Hegelian dialectic piece - the Emperor and the Assassin, a comparison of their individual lives. Posterity sees what appears to be a personal grudge between Gavrillo Princip and Archduke Ferdinand (or John Wilkes Both and Abraham Lincoln - pick your favourite pair).
I'm not sure if this is an ironclad argument in favour of the notion that history is inevitably skewed by the editorial bias of the reporter, but I think it's a pretty strong case...
cheer
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
okay, lets take another random example; say Barbara Tuchman's best-selling (for a) history "A Distant Mirror : The Calamitous 14th Century". what is the editorial bias therein?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
sweeping judgementAh, I was kind of agreeing, Mr Heisenberg. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
In reply to:
Barbara Tuchman's best-selling (for a) history "A Distant Mirror : The Calamitous 14th Century". what is the editorial bias therein?
Hey Tsuwm - I've afforded you the dignity of 'proper' quotes. lol! More seriously...
1. I have not read the work in question, and may or may not do so. My responses, therefore, will be based purely upon your post,and a generalised prediction set about possible bias.
2. Start with the title - why 'mirror', why 'calamitous'? Some possibilities
Mirror
Likely that the author is selling the idea that the 14th century in some way parallels our own. That we can, therefore, learn from it by studying it, and perhaps apply those 'lessons' to our own lives/society. This is, of course, bias, because any such connection is pattern-forming (metaphor-using). The author will have presented a thesis, and evidence to support it. Evidence that will not support it will,most likely, either be ignored (even if 'sub-consciously'), or discredited.
Calamitous
For whom? And what is the standard for calamity? The seventeenth century saw the bubonic plague sweeping Europe. The twentieth century saw the Holocaust, the Soviet pogroms, Pol Pot, Rwanda, the slaughter in the trenches of the Great War, the famine in Ethiopia and more. Which century better deserves the title 'calamitous', particular 'THE calamitous', as opposed to 'a calamitous'? Again, there appear to be signs, in the title alone, of authorial bias.
3. I haven't a clue as to the author's historical 'project'. Chances are her (Barbara is female, yes?) historical vision is a conflation of social structure theory and 'great man' theory. She will probably 'explain' the happenings of the century in terms of (i) the people who influenced what happened, and (ii) the social/technological/political factors that prevailed (including religion). In this itself there is bias because the historian is trying to 'explain'. Random events - a volcano, an epidemic, a flood, a hunting accident - are downplayed, or, gamefully shoehorned into one or the other side of this theory. We humans dislike the idea that random events (the unexplained, and possibly inexplicable) can affect our lives, and all our theories tend to downplay the effect of random occurences. When faced with incontrovertible evidence of randomness, we resort to synchronicity, and coincidence theory, and eventually, the Prime Mover. My point is not that randomness is the only causal factor in history, nor even that it is the most important. But if (if such a thing were possible) an objective measurement showed that random events had a 20% influence, say, on the course of that century's history, and at least 20% of the explanation, or detail, in her book was not given over to this, then there is authorial bias.
I'm sorry if this 'analysis' is rough and generalised - I haven't read the book...
cheer
the sunshine (suspecting strongly that this thread probably belongs on a different board, but prepared to carry on regardless) warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Ah, I was kind of agreeing, Mr Heisenberg.
Too slow on the uptake. That's my problem...
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,602
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
157
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
