Is History bias?

[Torah]

Is History bias? Do we read history from the victor’s point of view?
I see we have some friends across the pond in this forum. And I have always wondered what your take (teaching) about the American Revolution?.
And others.

 

[Milla]

Is History bias?

Since the recording and interpretation of history is done by human beings, who are inherently biased, of course the study of history is not objective.

 

[Jonathan David]

I agre with Milla. I think that even most modern historians will tell you as much. The biases in history are not just in how a story is told but what stories are told. Feminist, anti-racist and (neo)marxist critics have begun to bring some of history's blind spots into focus. This does not mean that history is useless however. Quite the contrary. By recognizing the limitations of a discipline, we can make more honest (and by extention "better") use of the knowledge that said discipline produces.

 

[Redneck]

The Victor writes the history books.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Is History bias?

Depends on whose side you look at it from I suppose. As for the American revolution, we were glad to get rid of them, ungrateful bunch of uncivilised....

 

[Milla]

Depends on whose side you look at it from

Isn't that pretty much the definition of "biased"?

 

[peach16_4u]

I think each record has their own bias however i think, especally now, that we have enough different views that one, we can figure out what is really going on, and two decide for ourself, as for far past history i think you have enough information from both sides to know what happened but the bias helps you to understand the emotions that people were going through and that can be as good as the history itself !

 

[Torah]

Andy Broadley. I Like your answer. Golly good

 

[OhhJim]

Depends on whose side you look at it from I suppose. As for the American revolution, we were glad to get rid of them, ungrateful bunch of uncivilised....

Then why'd you try to take us back, one sailor at a time, in 1812 and thereabouts?

Note that I'm not denying the description.

 

[Kal'thzar]

History is biased in the way that it is usually written by the victors, or the people who had such a thing as writing.

"victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan"

 

[Crusading_Ostrich]

In instance like the American Revolution, you could very well get the losing side of things as well since the British were by not subjugated.
Also would work for the English conquest of Quebec.

 

[Calamari]

All nations have their national myths which are usually based on mispresentations. But most western nations also have strongly critical intellectuals who denounce these misrepresentations as a propagandistic view of history, and the lies come to light. France has cut it's ties with it's colonialistic past, Germany has renounced Naziism, the Soviet Union und Khroutchev revisited the stalinist crimes, China revisited the maoist doctrine, Turkey will be forced to accept the armenian genocide and Israel will be finally forced to accept (and perhaps pay damages for) the displacement of 1.000.000 palestinians by jewish terrorists during the creation of Israel... However, i don't see that natural process of debunking national lies happening in the US. I'd even say that the contrary is currently happening : as in the regimes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, forces in the US are currently engaged in rewriting their own history, twisting, and maligning key points when it comes to issues like the middle east, the UN, Europe, or southern america, in an effort to 'embellish' contemporary american history. This is a strange and disquieting process, opposed to the general tendency of truthful interpretation of history that is taking place around the world.

 

[Kal'thzar]

do you have evidence for that?

*worried*

 

[Calamari]

Do you mean me ? For what excactly ?

 

[Kal'thzar]

of the USA activly rewriting their history....

 

[Calamari]

Well it's what currently happening with the war on terror... It simply doesnt exist, the whole thing is a cover-up for pure power politics. And Bush was voted for 'moral values'. This means that peope believe that what america is doing today is being done morally. That's rewriting history... Also issues like US war crimes in iraq, vietnam, cambodia, south america, lebanon, iran, israel etc... are almost never adressed. Instead, people believe that the US is fighting for 'freedom and democracy' everywhere. That's what i mean by saying they rewrite history. They give everything an embellishing interpretation. If they don't like someone, they call him "evil dictator" and if they like someone, they tag him "great visionary", which even happens to one and the same man, like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. This effort to give american history the moral touch it hasnt defies the laws of science.

 

[Kal'thzar]

I've heard a lot of claims on the net, just wondering if you could say anything about it, etc sources or whatever. I heard somewhere that america is treating iraq as a "cold war situation", or they want to keep the middle east divided, as they want there to be division between the countrie there so their oil is in a steady supply...etc etc etc

 

[hannabl]

Is History bias? Do we read history from the victor’s point of view?
I see we have some friends across the pond in this forum. And I have always wondered what your take (teaching) about the American Revolution?.
And others.

We haven't really come to that yet, but the way I got it America/US was a colonial state or something and payed taxes to England. But America/US didn't get to have any representive person in England so they got upset and wanted to break free.
England didn't want that, they wanted the taxes and the war broke out. Americans chose sides and fought against each others as well, the French helped the Americans that wanted to break free and they won. America became independent.

 

[Agrippa]

However, i don't see that natural process of debunking national lies happening in the US. I'd even say that the contrary is currently happening : as in the regimes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, forces in the US are currently engaged in rewriting their own history, twisting, and maligning key points when it comes to issues like the middle east, the UN, Europe, or southern america, in an effort to 'embellish' contemporary american history. This is a strange and disquieting process, opposed to the general tendency of truthful interpretation of history that is taking place around the world.

Of the examples you listed, self-examination did not begin until after the event. The French did not actively question colonialism for several hundred years. The US has already done its own revisionism with things like the westward expansion.

 

[billwald]

St John admitted as much because the stuff omitted is as important as the stuff included. Why did John edit as he did? Or the rest of them?