Wow, it's been a very long time since my last post! Something that's been nagging at me for quite some time (as we have discussed in class) is the topic of history in general. I am very confused as to what history itself is. To ask any high schooler or person one may pass in the street, history is the collection of actions, events, and people in the past- something immutable, over-and-done-with. However, reading William Bradford's writings from the Puritan literature packet, my thoughts of history have changed. As was stated earlier in the year, there can be no absolute "reality" because life is comparable to the view of a spectator at a game- no one experiences the same events. History, then, is what we call 'the past.' We judge one document of history to be 'factual' and 'correct' by comparing them to other documents written at the same time. For all we know, how can we know that all the documents written about these subjects are incorrect? Now, it is quite apparent that some events in history did indeed occur, such as World War II. We have radio feeds, pictures, and the millions of accounts of survivors. But what about an event such as the Battle of Hastings, for which we have only ancient texts and pieces of art?
In addition, history is simply not the collection of events that occurred in the past. It also, as I recently discovered, covers all parts of the mindset, culture, and people of the time period. Indeed, one may read extensively on the subject of the Salem witch hunts, but one has only gained a full understanding of the period when the psychology of the people involved (according to records) has been explored. One may find the reasoning behind many of these actions. Relating this back to what we have done in class, many events of the colonial days of America in New England (Puritans) relate back to the anxiety and fear of the settlers. They did not know whether or not, according to their specific religion, they would be accepted in Heaven for eternal salvation. Leading such a life, which goes without saying, can only be called stressful. What does everyone else think? Is history purely subjective or purely objective? Is it a mix? What else can history include?
1 comment:
Hey, it's Erin.
I've always thought that history is a bit subjective. It's "his-story" and whoever tells the story has the power to control what is heard, to color events, incorporate his or her own views and feelings, probably without even realizing it. Even when we recount something, we give what we understood to have occurred. That's just how people work. There's no real impartiality because, as Hayakawa teaches, everything is up to interpretation. Obviously there are objective parts to history - that George Washington was the first president, Bastille Day was July 17, 1789 (don't ask how I know that). But part of understanding history is understanding the people of that time period. That's why for a document-based question, the point of view of the writer is always noted, because that affects their interpretations of events. So I guess in a way, history can be whatever we make it to be.
Post a Comment