History is one of the principal areas of knowledge covered in the ToK course, which has a common misinterpretation that furthermore brings up many interesting knowledge questions and points of discussion. Many people when thinking of history often associate the term with "the past", when in reality, it is merely the study of past events, or a way to interact with the past itself, rather than a transcription of what once happened. This in itself already insights a few questions, a few including through who's perception are we seeing such past events, and how much of these events are put into the perception frame. Perception is only one of the many ways of knowing that come into play when studying the knowledge problems interlaced with history, which makes it a difficult area to exclusively focus on.
Before delving into examples, we must first understand what really encompasses the term "history" rather than solely its essence. In A Wrestler With the Angel, Daniel Boorstin explains that history isn't simply just reporting events and occurrences but much of it relies on the historian - both "the discoverer and the creator". As mentioned before, perspective is a key ingredient in the composition of so-called historical facts, because it is a human's job to try and make the stories gathered as neutral and least ambiguous as possible (the primary role as a historian), though it is impossible to completely remove a point of view. With this said, not only is it very difficult to be 100% transparent when reporting something, but it is even harder to even know that what you are reporting is even the true facts. A historian may find many accounts saying one thing, but how can he guarantee that what he is reading–things that have been also reported by other people– is what happened in reality? As it is hard for him to take away their personal bias, they cannot know that what they are studying from does not have a bias, emotional appeal, exaggeration, and even perspective of their own. Boorstin poses an important question, asking "how reliable are the remains of the past as clues to what was really there?" Historians have as their main purposes analysing and studying verified information to pass on what once happened, but it's not in their power or control to make sure regardless of all the data they have collected–as the title of the piece states, they are "wrestling with the angel".
This whole concept can be applied to pretty much any historical evidence. For example, during the Civil War, it is commonly known that in 1819, Missouri wanted to become a slave state. Since the Congress had a balanced power in the Senate with 11 free states and 11 slave states, Missouri changing into a slave state made the powers unequal and the South would have a larger number in the Senate. Nonetheless, it is nearly impossible to know what other factors could have influenced this, such as financial support. Through the common perception of historians, it seems to be a done deal that since Missouri wanted slaves, it switched its preference, not that any other things could have affected this decision. Furthermore, while debating whether allowing Missouri to become a slave state or not, the state of Maine offered to change into a free state to let Missouri take its place as a slave state. This agreement was called the Missouri Compromise. It is, again, impossible to know why that happened during that time, because all that we know now a days has been passed on from generation to generation, through different perceptions of historians that although are probably able to get as much reliable information as they possibly can, do not know anything factually. Even Boorstin states in his piece, many things are avoided, cut out, hidden and protected, which can really skew our modern day view of what once happened.
On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to have catalogued data of precisely everything that once happened, and history is the most accurate method found yet to collect information. It has many pros and cons, though it has been seen to be an effective method through analysing primary documents to then create secondary in order to put together a "common" understanding of past events regardless of points that are still debatable today. Therefore, history brings up various knowledge points that can be discussed, but it is still undeniably a way to perceive what we believe is the past of humankind.
Word Count: 755 (sorry)
Good Carol. Your post is long, in part because you don't quite keep a tight focus on one idea and in part because you included a real example. So, I really like the specifics of the example, but I want you to work on keeping a tighter rein, both in terms of ideas and sentences, on what you're developing. You actually have three ideas here, where you only needed one. You have the difference between history as the past and the study of the past; you have the issue of artifacts, and you have the idea of multiple perspectives. While I'm happy to see you know so much, I want you to work on depth by sticking to one idea sometimes, and really nailing it down. Anyway, I can see evidence of lots of learning here, so good work.
ReplyDelete