TOK Unit

The idea of history, for me, has always been supported by the notion that it is based on factual evidence. As someone who has been studying history for years in school, and believes I am surrounded by the repercussions of past events, it has never been negotiable in my mind that all the history we know had to have happened the way it is told to us. For this reason, when we read Carl Becker’s What are Historical Facts?, there was a shift in what I had always known to be true: perhaps the entire subject area of history was not as legitimate as I had once believed. It reminded me of something we had discussed in ToK a few weeks earlier, the question of why the physical sciences such as chemistry, biology, etc. seemed more noteworthy than the human sciences. In my case, I am (or was) one of the people who gave an elevated sense of respect to claims from a natural scientist rather than, for example, a psychological study. For whatever reason, the theories from a human scientist did not have the same effect on what I believed in. With this being said, history was never something I had questioned before reading Becker’s article. In his piece, he states that the historical fact comes from within the historian’s mind, for he is the one who has chosen to make the connection between two events that took place when he was not present. So, what is the truth? Does a fact become historical when it is in the mind of a historian? And, if so, how can we evaluate its legitimacy?

In the Alpha Beta simulation we did in class, we had to analyze some primary documents we had written in our roles after the simulation ended as impartial historians. This proved somewhat challenging for us, because if something was not mentioned in the documents, we could not include it in our discussion. This showed me how much historians rely on the evidence they are given, but how this can also be a flawed system for analyzing a certain event. In both primary and secondary documents, there are often limitations, which is why in history class when we analyze a document we must be aware of this barrier. It is impossible for all information to be included in a single document, and there can often be biases and aspects that leave out important details due to the time in which it was written in. I experienced these limitations in historical facts in the research I am doing for my history IA, which is on the Vietnam War. Something I have struggled with is analyzing certain speeches from American politicians during the time of the war, because a large limitation within these documents is that they do not reflect what was actually happening, but what they wanted the public to believe was happening. A question that arose for me while looking at these documents was; does this make them less credible? Due to my prior knowledge about the subject matter, I already knew that what the politicians said in some of their speeches were not accurate portrayals of what was happening in the war, but if I did not have this knowledge already, would I have believed the document to be true?There is also the factor of historiography. 

To further prove Becker’s claim that the historical fact exists in the mind of the historian, it is notable to mention that historians often have different ideas of cause and effect in major historical events. In my own research, I have found that some historians indicted government policy during that time quite harshly, whereas others say that the war could have been avoided altogether. Even though the group of historians have the same information to look at, they do not necessarily come to the same conclusion, just like in our Alpha Beta discussion. 

History Unit

History never was nor will my “forte” for a number of reasons. However, when we began observing this complex area of knowledge in ToK I was thrilled because I knew that we’d discuss the reliability of history and it’s “facts,” something I’ve always questioned as well. 

I’ve always looked at history with a skeptical eye. I remember asking my dad, how do the historians know for sure that this is what’s written in the scriptures, how do we know that X was responsible for the massacre, how do we know that this was really what happened? We don’t. Reading Becker’s work really made me start to think of history in a much “deeper” level. His distinction of when, where and what is a historical fact really comes to show how intricate history is.   If I were to discuss these three different ideas that Becker promotes about history, this blog post would exceed the word limit, however the sentence we created in class together beautifully summarizes his piece in terms of historical facts; “The historical fact is not the event itself but is someone’s affirmation/representation of what happened. Therefore, the historical fact is not in the past but in the present located someone’s mind.”

Becker describes how a historical fact is formulated by a generalization of numerous accounts, experiences, opinions and points of views of the same exact event. Every historian will come to develop a fact from all these varying sources that may differ immensely or be identical to someone else’s; “The historian cannot eliminate the personal equation,” as Becker says. Therefore, due to the underlying personal biases existent in history, we can never ultimately guarantee ourselves that what we believe is a ‘historical fact’ is a real account for what had occurred. Theres so much detail that was eliminated or kept to develop an account for a historical event that we can’t really state as a ‘truth.’ For instance, its like our framework assignments. I’m not devaluing any of historian’s work, however it’s undeniable that they use this method when using primary sources to create secondary. They can’t use every single primary document, hence, they must be selective of their sources to construct an over view an event. In fact, we as a class experienced this during the Alpha/Beta discussion as historians. We all had access to the exact same documents and everyone did share similar views of them, however everyone also had different interpretations of the documents. This lead to an 80 minute long discussion to come to a conclusion. Our conclusion may have included the different vocabulary, perhaps with their definitions as well, and cultural values like dragging of feet, stealing of cross, however, many personal accounts were also disregarded by the historians at the conference. Therefore, we know a very broad over view of the event of Alpha/Beta confrontation, and we can’t deny that this provides a good insight of the event, in fact, we managed to settle some “facts,” though everyone interpreted these facts differently due to their bias towards their own values and experiences in relation to the event. Therefore, not everyone interpreted the event exactly the same. Everyone believed in their own accounts of the documents and the discussion to conclude what occured in the Alpha/Beta confrontation. 

Overall, we will never know what precisely happened in history, which drives me crazy. Regardless, historians’ work have and still do provide us with detailed and reliable sources to disclose more about the past every day. Even though I question the importance, I do know that history is an extremely important area of knowledge for it is all of what happens that has brought us to where we are today in September of 2014. We learn from history, in fact we base our future actions off of what has previously occurred whether that be World War I or a personal happening. In conclusion, as a convoluted subject, history is heavily based on emotions - whether that be forming a fact or believing in it. Either way, it’s an essential part of our knowledge that we must, carefully, appreciate. 

ToK Unit: History

History has always been my weak area. I remember telling one friend whose weak subject was also history, “I always struggle learning history because the question, ‘How do they know that they’re true and why do we need to know?’ always pops up in my head whenever I try.” Of course, I have no rights to doubt the historians’ skills, but I would always wonder how people could read and think about history believing that they actually happened.

To me, “history” is and will probably always be a big mystery. When Carl L. Becker stated that “the historian cannot eliminate the personal equation” (335), it made me even more sceptical about what people call historical “facts.” If historians interpret the events differently, then how can we know which ones to believe in? Will it depend on each reader's level of satisfaction when labelling historical facts as “facts”? I would argue that although there will be preferences within one person to another, there will always be a general idea for each history since in my opinion, one historical event leads to another and there is no single individual event. The statement that Becker had made would always be true since interpreting an event, or the act of interpreting itself would always involve a person’s experience and emotions. For this, perhaps it is a matter of how neutral a historian’s standing point can be in terms of emotions.

Additionally, Becker suggested that it is unlikely that no person knows zero history because whatever action a person makes is based on their past. (338) However, will the past necessarily be history? I believe that the definition of “history” depends on each individual. Some may study history merely for knowing what the human beings were like in the past, while some may study history to “learn from the past” so as to ultimately become a better person. Here, this sentence contained both “history” and “past” just like in many other sources that talk about history. I would claim that history will always be about the past, that is, the time before the present, but the past will not always be history. There is a connotation in the term “history” that in order to be able to label an event as history, it needs to be a prominent event that inevitably creates a remark, thus affecting many other events. A person’s one simple past event (e.g. buying an ordinary apple from a grocery store) may be long forgotten as it did not affect the person’s life or behaviours, but a major event (e.g. becoming the C.E.O of a company) can be considered as history since it is likely that it had affected not only one person but many other people and events.

In conclusion, the history will always be a big viscous subject or notion as it is difficult to completely solidify a historical fact, and some “facts” may be more real than the others. To actually believe whether it is true or not will always depend on each individual, but I believe that history is essential to everyone for building experiences and making actions each day.

History. Although it's name suggests a study of what happened in the past, it is a much more complex field involving facts about the past that exist in the present and can impact the future. Thereof, according to Becker: history and historical facts are symbols of the event or era of the past that exist in the present and effect the present and future. In class we concluded, "The historical fact is not the event itself but is someone’s idea/representation of what happened. Therefore, the historical fact is not in the past but in the present, located in someone’s mind."

This idea that historical facts are located in someone's mind and are always influencing our ideas of the present can relate to the Theory of knowledge (TOK) concept subjectivity versus objectivity. Subjectivity is the way our human diversity in interpretation of reality is carried differences in culture, the individual and their perception. On the other hand, objectivity is the aim to diminish diversity of subjective interpretations of the world and have logical knowledge based off of fact. If historical facts are always in someone's mind and people use perception, memory, emotions, imagination and language as a way of knowing then there is no doubt in my mind that historical facts can be molded and perceived differently by each personal. In this case, while a class learns about World War II one student might see it as a total academic topic and have no reaction to the unit other than needing to know the facts, however another student might feel grave empathy towards the victims of World War II and perceive some facts as more severe or important than others.

A historical example of historical facts being perceived differently could include many different wars and disagreements that were started due to a disagreement in fact or different perception of land territory. For example, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is one that many people may disagree on who started or increased the intensity of the long-lasting conflict and violent war attacks on each other. It is also hard to determine who's territory they are fighting over and sometimes the historical fact about why they are fighting can change and be interpreted differently. The two groups have had many different started battles in the past and so all these historical facts, or symbols, need to be placed together and seen as one big thing with many little symbols of the event in it to better understand what has happened. An example when this is also used in my life, to a more casual and happier note, is my scrap books or collection of photos over the years. These photos are not the physical even themselves but they symbolize that moments and can give us some information about the event. Notice that one photo alone is not always as powerful as many photos together that can tell a story about an event or a year of someone's life. We need a little background information about it. Just like a historical fact is better off categorized in groups/eras.

One could argue that a historical fact is a fact, just a symbol of the time and it should not be argued against just as if one would not argue if the image or person that was photographed in a picture or documented in a scrapbook was real on a day to day basis. There is the idea that we accept the reality that we each perceive and fact is fact. However, in TOK especially, there is no fact and all knowledge is relative.

History is a complex topic because it is entirely based on facts that you must analyze but eventually need to have some certain facts to base a timeline or the knowledge of the event off of. We cannot accept everything as the truth however, some knowledge needs to be objective. While historical facts are everywhere at all times but basically present in the mind, it makes it hard for a student that does not take history to then accept that any historical facts are fact and that they are all subjective or relative to our perceptions. However, learning more about the area of knowledge I can further grasp the idea that it is important to critically think about the historical facts but there is a certain extent to which history needs to be objective and for the most part certain.

Word Count: 739

ToK Unit - History

        When the idea of the subject, the very word “history” comes to people’s minds, for the most part, it will call up images and ideas of World Wars, seemingly never-ending strings of European monarchs, discoveries, and dates (sometimes not even attached to specific events anymore). However, that is simply a small frame encapsulating a fragment of the bigger picture. History, if it is said to be the study of the past, must then include happenings of two minutes ago, two milliseconds ago. Those are often marginalized or entirely left out of our schema of the Area of Knowledge. However, it may go further than that, as Carl Becker expresses in his piece What are Historical Facts? our concept of history consists of solely historical facts, not happenings, and these facts exist in the “now.” Historical facts are not history in itself as we understand it; they are not the happening. When I say “Brazil was discovered in 1500,” I am simply expressing my interpretation of what happened, but the actual act, the origin of the claim is not occurring, it can never occur again. My claim, therefore, is in a period of time separate from the happening. Historical fact exists right now, in the present, as it is not the actual event responsible for the generation of the affirmation, it is an idea. So how can we say “history” only exist in these faraway times if we are making claims of this nature today?

Another misconception about history is that, to many, it seen as a (sometimes quite literally) set-in-stone set of claims that define who we were, are, and can help predict who we will be. It is hard fact that can’t be changed, as it has already happened. However, the concept of historiography will prove otherwise. People who study history as a discipline oftentimes engage in applying the concept of historiography where the points of view of two historians are set to dialog or even debate with each other, in order to find a closer approximation to establishing an affirmation of “what really happened.” For example, to dialog with the claim I previously used as an example one could claim that a certain historian, Boris Fausto, a Brazilian historian, for example, doesn’t call the land that constitutes Brazil today by the name “Brazil” until 1822, when it becomes independent. Therefore, he would argue that my claim was not correct, as it calls 1500 land by the name “Brazil,” when it really wasn’t that. This brings into question the truth behind history. If, through historiography, our ideas about history become so malleable, how can we ever find concrete truths? It seems to be the case that we, actually, as with all knowledge that we must create representations of, perceiving it as we are and not as it is, cannot.

The claim in itself then begins to diffuse into different ways of knowing. It then starts to be affected by perception, language, emotions. This leads to another side of history that is sometimes overlooked: its connection to imagination. When we must fill its “knowledge gaps,” history becomes ridden with small bridges of fiction. So, to what extent does it lose its reliability completely? Maybe not entirely, but it definitely sheds its characterization as a hard-fact-only subject. History is not set in stone and it is not just the far past. History is more of a mutating, chaotic quilt of claims that constantly accompanies our consciousness in terms of existence in time.

History Unit

History is a very complex area of knowledge. You can never truly know what happened in the past, you only have what historians have interpreted happened and that's what you have to put your faith in. Without historians we wouldn't know anything that has happened, though when we read different sources, we also see that even historians have many different viewpoints on what occurred. So how do we know what actually happened? How do we know which source to trust?
This is a constant question that we ask ourselves, that is why there are two distinct names for the sources: primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are speeches, journals ... from people who said and wrote them at the time, people who were directly involved with what happened. On the other hand secondary sources are articles, reviews, analysed texts... that come from historians who have studied the subject but who weren't directly involved in the event. With these two categories we already can separate ideas into more reliable and least reliable. But we also need to use logic. What is more likely to have happened, how many people share the same opinion, the stronger voice.
Moving on, Becker wrote an article attempting to answer the question: "What are historical facts?", in this article he discusses many different ideas that he has on the subject. He addresses three questions: "what is the historical fact?", "when is the historical fact?", "where is the historical fact?".  He talks mostly about historical facts and how we come up with them. He says "that was a historical event but is now a historical fact" He also discusses that historical facts only makes a difference because they remain in people's minds. This brings me to the Star Trek episode that we watched in class, many years ago an artefact had been created so that each time people passed through the planet they would remember the massacre by reliving it. Once they understand where these strange memories are coming from they contemplate destroying it so that no one else has to go through the horrible nightmares they relived. However, on second thought they realised how important it was to keep that memory alive so that it doesn't repeat itself in the future. Finally, in the Becker article we can come to the conclusion that: "The historical fact is not the event itself but is someone’s interpretation of what happened. Therefore the historical fact is not in the past but in the present, located in someone’s mind."
All of this shows that historical evidence and facts are very tangible, they are things that remain in people's minds and that are transmitted from generation to generation. But how can we be sure that they remain intact and that some of the details aren't altered through time?
In my opinion it is very hard to rely on history as an area of knowledge, although it might seem as a really reliable source it can get very questionable. As Napoleon Bonaparte said: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." However I do think that without historical facts and evidence, the world wouldn't be where it is today because with that information we were able to evolve especially politically. We don't make the same mistakes and we have found new ways of solving problems. Without our history knowledge we might have been forever trapped in the same state and the same place in time.

Manny TOK Unit- History

The beginning of the unit already managed to bring those observing into the world of it, starting off with a simulation of what it was like when the Europeans colonized the Americas. Of course, this achieved in showing us how history is, ultimately, a story, which can be told from multiple different perspectives. Charles Becker asks three questions. "What is Historical fact?" "Where is Historical Fact?" and "When is Historical fact?" The answer to each sum up to basically explain that History is in the eye of the beholder. Historical facts are in the head of the person thinking about it, as Historical fact is not the same thing as Historical event. All of these thoughts are present, therefore are only located within the present. A good example to explain this is the example of a map of Egypt. The map of Egypt is not actually Egypt, but rather a representation of Egypt, the same way how Historical fact isn't the actual event but a representation of the event. 

Another factor to the idea of historical fact is that something cannot really be considered a fact until it is approved by multiple different sources. Due to this, a fact isn't necessarily what has occurred, but the acceptance that something has occurred. An example of this was when we did the colonization simulation in class, and my beta character went over to be diplomatic with the other tribe. Though my character claimed in his book that he was trying to be diplomatic, the fact that all others claimed I had betrayed them overruled the actual fact. In a sense, emotion plays a large part in history, as what people write down in primary sources might be the result of their own perception of things rather than an unbiased claim on what it is that actually occurs. In that case, saying that history is absolute is not a very adequate claim, as history happened in many different ways inside the heads of people.

          Though historical fact might only be a representation of what actually occurred, there are actual scars left due to the events that serve as fact as well. The existence of Auschwitz is a clear reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust, being something actually tangible rather than actually a thought. Though they are simply shadows of a different time, there is no doubt that those things actually did occur.  

TOK Unit Post - Nick Reinhart

History is certainly a peculiar topic. Especially when studied under the scope of Theory of Knowledge. This is because our main sources of learning about history are either memories retold, or journals, records and other pieces of written evidence. It is these sometimes rare documents that provide a possible insight into a culture or a time period. However, some evidence can be misleading of what actually happened in the past. Records can be forged, destroyed, the public lied to, any number of things. It is from this that the fallacy of the victor writes the history comes from, and in some cases this can even be true.

Furthermore, an aspect of human culture and life is human’s tendency to repeat the past. This is part of what makes knowing our history so important. Barbara Tuchman writes “The story and study of the past, both recent and distant, will not reveal the future, but it flashes beacon of lights along the way and it is useful nostrum against despair” (286). By knowing the past it is easier to learn from mistakes, and to avoid repeating them. An example of this can be clearly seen between the two dictators Napoleon and Hitler. Both attempted to conquer Russia, and both failed as a result of the intense winters. Had Hitler realized this, and not attempted to push into Russian territory, there may have been a different outcome to WWII. This same concept was present in the Star Trek voyager film we watched. The colony that had lived on that planet setup a device so that everyone near there would remember what had happened. So that no one would commit the same crime, and repeat past mistakes. Through this the fallacies of the victors tell the story is also falsified.  Had the winners of war been the only ones to ever tell history, any story of any oppressed or defeated nation would be lost.  This is part of what makes history also so important to humans as a species. It defines who we are and who we were in the past. Without history, there is not tradition. And without traditions, nothing else truly separates each culture. In a way history is also linked to our memories. For many hundreds of years, and even today, some histories are passed down through memories and are told to one another. It is also a sort of historical documentation. In the end history becomes a part of humans that defines us. 

Word Count: 413

Lucile ToK Unit: History

          The minute I entered my class today, my history teacher asked me to talk about ToK in relation to history. I immediately began ranting about Carl Becker’s article “What are historical facts?”. The author asks the reader three questions: “What is the historical fact?, “Where is the historical fact?” and finally “When is the historical fact?”. According to him, and justifiably so, the historical fact is an abstract account of a past event, it only exists in the human mind and it is past, present and future. In other words, the historical fact is quite ambiguous. Let me just say, those answers absolutely ruined my perception of history. I found myself agreeing with him and questioning all the historical knowledge I have amassed over the years. Thanks Carl.

       On a more serious note, I really do agree with him. Having studied in both a French and American educational system, I was taught history from two different perspectives. However, in either system I have always absorbed the information I was given as true. Yet, the more I thought of it and the more I saw how society can often, mistakenly, view history as true and objective because it presents “cold hard facts”. The reality of it is, history is open to interpretation by each and everyone of us. Which makes me think, is objectivity attainable in history? 

        I just began studying the practices of the Second World War, recently focusing on the Holocaust. Based on various accounts and representations of the events (pictures, stories, diaries, etc.) we know it happened. Yet, the way it happened and the meaning given to the Holocaust varies greatly from person to person. This event was a horrific mass murder, however the gravity of it can be taken up a level in certain Jewish communities while it might be toned down in other parts of the world.  This brings up the concept of perception as a way of knowing and cultural frames. I want to take this one step further and introduce the idea of a historical frame. Can your history determine your perception of events? Is the historical fact itself affected by your past? Surely it is. Any information presented about the Holocaust can be taken with more gravity by a Jewish person compared to someone whose past is less affected by it. ***** In the end, several accounts of the Holocaust can be made. There actually is a term in history that can seem similar to what I just mentioned: historiography or the history of history. Historiography keeps track of the multiple records that have been made about past events and the methodology through which those records have been made. Thus, it is a more professional and measured manner of acknowledging that history varies between individuals, compared to my proposal of having historical frames shape knowledge and perception. In both cases, several interpretations can be collected. 

           Now, going back to Carl Becker. He can say all he wants about the historical fact existing only in the mind or being an abstract account, I can only partially agree with him because his assertion implies that history is significantly biased. Yes, it is true, in my opinion, that humans give meaning to a fact and that a fact by itself has limited meaning. If I were to rant about the French revolution to my dog, surely she'd wag her tail and walk away, never giving any thought to it. However, Paulina and I were discussing this earlier today, it is not correct to say that a picture of a Jewish mass grave during the Holocaust (for example) holds no information by itself. Literally, the fact is there. You can touch it, you can see it. And I find it safe to say that more than one person will deduce the same type of information from it. Thus, I want to re-explore Carl Becker’s idea and emphasize that although the historical fact can exist in the physical world, it only attains a certain meaning through the human mind. The Star Trek episode supports this claim. The memorial that the Voyager crew finds is a physical account of a past event, something happened and that is why the memorial is there. In itself, it holds a limited meaning. However, it is only when the crew experience the full extent of the memorial’s existence that history takes shape and a deep meaning is attained. Thus, historical accounts point the way towards particular types of conclusions instead of arbitrary interpretation. 

            I realize I have made very strong assertions, and worked little with different perspectives. Instead I chose to discuss how a historical fact is, and how meaning and objectivity are attained in history. Throughout this process, I came to the conclusion that the historical fact is not entirely abstract, but only attains deeper meaning if processed by the human mind. Although the array of interpretation in history makes it seems like there is too much room for bias, having several accounts and perspective about just one event can aid to construct a more objective and complete picture of said events. In this way, the closest I can get to objectivity is through historiography and acknowledging everybody lives and interprets history differently based on historical frames and, indeed, the facts that they have access to. 

Word Count: 892

***** Really (really) important: knowing the Holocaust is a delicate subject to touch on, I want to clarify that in this paragraph I am in no way undermining the gravity and awfulness of the Holocaust.  

ToK Unit

Rafaela Sabó

It is often boldly assumed that studying history is simply studying the past. When looking at this analytically, however, it goes much deeper than that. In order to effectively study history, one must evaluate the facts that will, in part, explain the reasons behind what happened in the past. This evaluation includes the analysis of primary and secondary sources and the assessment of all the values and limitations that these documents bring. Now, what exactly classifies history as history? Some may assume that history is anything that happened in the past, whether it is the near or very far past. Though that may be accurate, the events taken place in the near past are so recent that a clear evaluation of them cannot be made, making it impossible to determine the real causes and effects of the occurrence. This is why in history class we only study events of a certain grand level of importance that happened at least ten years ago. So, what exactly makes these important events, history? According to Carl Becker, history is the importance you give to the facts you are presented with. For example, in his article “What are Historical Facts”, he gives the example of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. What makes this fact history is not actually that he literally crossed the Rubicon, but why he did it and what the effect of his actions were.

The importance of historical actions can also be evaluated by its mention in both primary and secondary historical documents. In the Alpha Beta simulation we did in class, all participants were asked to write a primary document about what happened during the tribe interactions. Later, as historians, we had to analyze the documents in order to see what really happened and describe how the groups actually acted towards each other. What made the historians convinced that an occurrence was truly important, was how many people mentioned it, for it can be concluded that if it was not mentioned in more than one participant’s document, then it wasn’t really that important for the analysis of the interaction. This is because primary documents are solely based on perception, and what may have been crucial for the experience of one individual, is not substantial for the entire simulation.

In history, of wars, for example, what makes an event important is also the aftermath and what actions happened because of it. In history class we are studying World War II and an example we found was with the signing of a pact between the USSR and Germany in 1939 that would prevent Germany from fighting a two-front war. The reason this is such an important fact in the analysis of the war is because had it not happened, Hitler, historians claim through analysis, would have feared declaring war on any of the European powers, meaning WWII would have not started at the precise time it did, one week after the signing of the pact. But this all goes back to the analysis of documents.

Historical uncertainty comes from the evaluation of facts. Though seemingly reliable, historical facts can never be considered 100% accurate. These facts don’t include the statement of what happened, such as: World War I was fought between the UK, France, and the USSR and Germany and Austria-Hungary. The facts that can never be certain are the causes of the war, due to the infinite number of factors that must be taken into consideration. In history we base ourselves on what is written down on paper, but what about what wasn’t? Personal reasons and intuition of global leaders are things that cannot be documented, proving that history is definitely not an area of certainty, but an area of constant evaluation.

TOK History Unit

The last time I studied history in school was in 10th grade and learning history from a Korean public school made it seem as if history was a list, a series of events that students memorized to learn. Perhaps this was due to how classes were taught and how I received the information. There was no questioning the veracity of statements nor the reliability of evidence. If the textbook said it was, it was, and that shaped my perception of history: an inflexible subject with list of unquestionable facts. However, this history unit in ToK shattered my perception and suggested not simply an opposite of my previous conception of history but an extreme view of history. I came out of this unit now with the idea that history is not a collection of facts, but a subjective, manipulative narrative of events. However, more importantly, I feel like that history could never be history for me.

In “What are Historical Facts,” Carl Becker suggests that historical “facts” become facts because of the value they have to us. History does not shape us; we shape history. Becker acknowledges the inability of the historian to present any actual event in its entirety. Among the wide selections of affirmations, the historian chooses what to include and what not to. He writes, “The event itself, the facts, do not say anything, do not impose any meaning. It is the historian who speaks, who imposes a meaning.” There is a great power humans have over shaping history, but he implies something even perhaps more detrimental to the subjectivity of history. Our manipulation of the selection of these “affirmation” “...become historical facts, capable of doing work, ..only when someone, you or I, brings them alive in our mind by means of pictures, images or ideas of the actual occurrence.” He implies that imagination, a way of knowing that has a high potential to be subjective, is the controlling factor that makes history valuable to us.

This fundamental aspect of how history becomes history leads to the ToK concept of perception and the discussion of frames. In the perception unit, students learn how all senses are limited with a frame that can shaped by a variety of factors. A prime example of this is the different hues of colors aborigines can physically detect. Raised in a natural environment where blue and green hues are critical for survival, aborigines categorize to what seems the same color as two distinct colors. All observations we make will have a bias that can be innate or fostered through our environment.

The Star Trek episode shines light on how history can be “selected” and passed on. The Voyagers decision to recharge the power cells reflect an universal human morality. The Voyagers felt it was moral to let the genocide that occurred on the planet be known because they valued in the protection of human life and the prevention of genocide; they shared mutual disgust towards mass murder. Had they been the leaders in the genocide, would the genocide of the inhabitants on the planets be forever erased? Subjective values often become the basis of our selection consciously and subconsciously.

As discussed in class, primary documents are nothing but frames and selection, another example being Anne Frank’s diary. How are historians to elicit the “correct” and “true” sections of the document from personal documents that can be so shaky in its foundation? Of course there are ways to solidify the validity of an event, but there are times where our sentiments and simply us get in the way of examining a historical document with critical eyes. Aren’t we perhaps a bit too reliant on the events recorded in Anne Frank’s diaries? Are we so compelled and mesmerized by it because of the rare material of document of this kind or the hardships that her people faced?

However, I may be confused and feeling uncertain about history because I’m caught in my own definition of history. If some people believe that history should constitute of events of what people thought were important, then the selection process does not become a hindrance but a guide that indicates what people valued.

Despite this, history should still have its purpose to narrate the lives of the people in a less biased and selecting way that does not force an opinion or value to the learners of history. It should remain, if it ever were, to be fair in its representation of events that can perhaps be attained with the efforts of various historians with various beliefs.

Word Count: 758

History Unit

History relies on faith. After much deliberation, I came this conclusion that would not be the initial way of knowing associated with this area of study. However, history is based on assumptions that historians make when claiming to tell and interpret the facts that all humans agree upon. For example, killing is morally incorrect and every human deserves to have basic rights and a guarantee of their personal freedom. When we read historical documents, we can interpret the events being described based on our beliefs and the historian’s influence on what is morally correct.

We have faith on historians and even if we don’t entirely believe in or understand their interpretation, we assume that their superior knowledge on the matter and ability to collect evidence will justify that approach to the events that took place.

On the other hand, the assumptions that historians make can be justified by reason. Growing up in a world that is heavily influenced by religion, we subconsciously live by the Ten Commandments and judge according to their standards. Is it immoral to assume that every human deserves the same right or that we should not steal? Of course this would make sense, yet, as a historian would do, placing it into context will result into a different interpretation of the question. If a man is starving for a week and he decides to steal bread to feed his children, is stealing justified?

The battle to terminate ambiguity in describing the past as Daniel Boorstain states in his article, “The Historian: ‘A Wrestler With the Angel,” is challenging due to the connotations associated with language. For example, during the United State’s invasion in Iraq words such as “collateral damage” replaced the killing of innocent people and the word  “campaign” replaced the word war. In order to justify the actions that were taking place, the name of the mission was called Operation Iraqi Freedom and the missiles being fired were called “patriots.” Journalists’ terminology on describing the war can be easily understood for those reading their articles in the present. However, if fifty years go by and that article is seen as describing a historical fact, the “cover” that was used to protect the government and citizens was not uncovered. People will not assume that collateral damage meant the deaths of innocent people and instead will leave it to their imagination to fill in the gaps based on their schema. Terms are not neutral. A 2,000 pound bomb that was used during the attacks known as “bunker buster” will be entirely up to the historian to select their frame and see if this piece of information is relevant. Historians carry power and we must have faith that their selecting of material is accurate. To what extent does history have shared knowledge? Or is it only an accumulation of personal knowledge? As Carl Becker claims on What Are Historical Facts, facts are incapable of changing anything. It happens on our minds or experiences, personal knowledge, but as we interpret personal knowledge, these facts are given value and it can be a source of knowledge. Does history have a shared knowledge for the entire world? Or does it vary based on country or region? Simple facts are claimed to be true such as that the First World War began on July 1914. Details of events seem to be unreliable and unclear, yet, broad statements are generally more accepted.

Word Count: 571

History Unit

After reading Carl Becker’s “What are Historical Facts?” I realized that a simple historical fact – the type of fact, which you are tested on in History tests – is a “generalization of a thousand and one facts.” What makes it so important that it appears in your test many years later are the strings attached to it, the thousands of other facts that had an impact on shaping our world today. Let’s take Rosa Parks as an example. She was a regular African-American woman who refused to sit in the back of the bus one day in 1955. That simple historical fact led to several events that culminated in the Civil Rights Movement, which eventually led to transforming American society as we know it today. That woman’s small dissent may be the reason why Barack Obama is president, in addition to other huge aspects of society.

Then again, when we study history, we are “wrestling with the angel of death,” trying to deal with an event that is in the past. Historians have to base their studies on “a statement about the event.” However, the statement is seen through somebody’s perception. So what we are exploring inevitably contains the source’s bias of what they saw or understood of a situation. Emotion (way of knowing) is inherently present in historical accounts. The same event might be seen and interpreted in completely different ways. How do we select which is one is the most valid? Does authority apply here? Is a judge’s account of the Salem Witch Trials more valid than an account from one of the accused? What about that of a complete outsider? Here I find one of the greatest challenges in the study of history.

Another limitation to History is the blank spots. We often use the analogy of “putting together the pieces” to describe the work of a historian. But we don’t have hypotheses as in the sciences, so there is not a clearly delineated puzzle we aim to reach. How, then, will the historian know if he left out a very important piece? Are there any “rules” for defining a historical fact?

History certainly is a really important area of knowledge for us as humans, although there are many implications that must be taken into account when studying it.

- Luiza