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 When we read historical documents, we can interpret the events being described based on our beliefs and the historian’s influence on what is morally correct.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