For some students history is fascinating and enthralling, an essential key to the mystery of the present; for others it a dull subject filled with a confusing flurry of names, dates, battles, treaties. It's a tempest in a library. Yet history is a hotly contested topic in many countries. All agree that history is a vitally important story for the identity of a nation--but whose point of view should be told? Which version should be communicated to the younger generations?
Early this year, for example, a group of conservative Italian parliamentarians loudly attacked the selection of history textbooks commonly used in Italy. They demanded scholastic texts that are impartial and objective in vision. They questioned whether public money should be spent on textbooks that are partisan and, in their view, are indoctrinating the young in leftist ideology. Among the passages reproached as biased are laudatory descriptions of Palmiro Togliatti, Enrico Berlinguer, and Alcide De Gasperi, each an undeniably important statesman in postwar Italy. The members of parliament branded the textbooks as communist and requested the opening of a formal enquiry.
In the United States, similarly, history can be contested territory. The late Howard Zinn, a professor of political science at Boston University, wrote A People’s History of the United States to give an alternative version to the narrative found in most American textbooks (you can find the entire work here). He viewed the story as dominated by the economic interests of the wealthy and wrote with consistent sympathy for those who suffered unjustly, the Native Americans, the African slaves, the impoverished immigrants, people in foreign countries (e.g., the Vietnamese), women, and laborers. For the political left, this is the unvarnished and unattractive truth of American history; for the political right, it is only a simple ideological fable pitting the rich against the poor. Who is right? Do you have to decide? Can you ignore the debate?
For one more example, let's look at the UK. In recent years the United Kingdom has watched with concern a decline in the number of students taking the history GCSE exam. The curriculum has been revamped, yet critics still think and feel the course is not challenging students and telling the right story. Nial Ferguson, for instance, wants the narrative to focus on why Europe gains ascendancy after 1500. The president of the Royal Society termed Ferguson's suggestions ideological; some liberal commentators more bluntly said they were rightwing.
Let's consider some questions. Can a textbook treating national history avoid charges of patriotic propaganda? Can history step out of politics and become objective? Can history remove itself from value judgements? If not, whose values should be promoted? Is there a neutral language and manner for writing history? Are you conscious of your own political ideas? Do you think that you don't have any political ideas? Is it desirable for a student to be wholly apolitical? Have your history classes at Marymount clarified your own sense of cultural and political identity?
Select a question or two, or formulate a related one of your own, and make a comment. Due: 4 November (coincidentally an important date in Italian history!)
think that everybody had political ideas. They may not realise it, but most people who have opinions have political ideas. These ideas can range from simple things like education systems to things which involve the government, such as political parties and such. I personally am not incredibly concious of having political ideas, but I do know that there are several things in the Dutch political system that I do not agree with. We currently have a coalition government and I completely disagree with one of the parties in power. This party is the right-wing party. Their leader, Geert Wilders, is one of the most racist men ever to have power in our country (I believe). He is very much against freedom of religion and immigration in our country. He believes that there should be a limit on the mosques in the Netherlands, and believes that we should close our borders to refugees.
ReplyDeleteI think an important part of teaching history is knowing whose perspective it is told from. Most national history has shades of patriotism, and it appears to be inevitable. If textbooks are written by, let's say, the Italians and they write about their own history, it is inevitable that they will show their country in a positive light especially if they are the victors of a war. They say that history is told by the he winners, and this does not seem to be untrue. We know more about the hardships of the Jews than we know about the hardships of the German soldiers. This is because the Jews, although they suffered hardships, they came out on the victorious side because they had been liberated by the vicotrs.
--Lexanne
When writing about history it is extremely difficult to avoid, in one way or in another, some form of bias. This mainly occurs due to inaccuracies contained in the ways we are able to know about the past. We therefore need to consider the reliability of primary and secondary sources, both of which have their unique pros and cons. A primary source is a document written by a person who was directly involved in the events occurring during a specific time period. Although this source may be regarded as reliable since it was written with the help of direct experience it may be at the same time be extremely inaccurate due to the form with which the source describes the events. It may in fact, be written considering only one point of view and hence would depict reality from a biased and subjective point of view. Since most secondary sources are written on the basis of primary sources this leads to further inaccuracies. This is why writing a national history textbook presents itself as a wearisome task. A national history book in fact needs to avoid bias in order to make the information contained in its pages as reliable as possible. In order to do this, a variety of sources, written from different points of views, should be taken into consideration. This process however requires an extensive period of dedicate research which may be carried out either partially or in a cursorily way. Politics is another frail topic to discuss in a history book considering the difficulty that arises in order to remain as unbiased as possible on perspectives. Although history textbooks may be revised again and again, in my opinion they will always contain inaccuracies and shades of bias that are very difficult to eliminate.
ReplyDeleteI personally am not involved in my nation's political life due to the corruption and stupidity that haunts its politicians. However at the same time I try to build a personal political ideology in order to understand and participate fully in the social life of my community.
Alessio Favalli
I believe that history books should be based on primary or secondary sources. Primary sources have been written by individuals who were directly involved in the events. History bias can be prevented through the use of primary sources. Secondary sources have been written on the basis of primary sources, therefore they are considered inaccurate. I am against history bias because people want to know what happened in their country before their birth. At least, I am really interested on the Italian history and I am proud of it. While studying the Italian history in school I analyzed many primary sources documenting what had happened, to prevent biased history. It is unavoidable that an Italian history textbook relates their country in a positive way. History bias is a great problem in our textbook and in my opinion the group of conservative Italian parliamentarians have done a great job in discovering and attacking the Italian history textbooks. The members of the party branded the book as communist and considered whether public money should be spent for new textbooks. I believe that money should be spent for new textbooks in order to decrease history bias that greatly influences the readers.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to politics I am not conscious of my own political ideas. Therefore I consider myself up to now in my life to be wholly apolitical. I believe that I am too young to understand completely politics. However, I am conscious that we live in an unjust society where many politicians are corrupt.
Vittorio
History is an argument that has been always taught and will always be taught from different perspectives depending on the people. For example I had been taught the second world war from different professor and each of them explained it in a different way. One stressed out that Mussolini did a mistake in doing an alliance with Hitler and another underlined that it was inevitable and that if Mussolini didn’t alliance with Hitler we wouldn’t be here sitting down to learn. This is to demonstrate how depending on the person facts are explained subjectively. It’s an error to read textbooks that under the lines give a bias view of thing but this in a way even depends on the fact that textbook which are secondary sources are inspired by the primary which are said to be unbiased but In my opinion are even in a sense biased. This is because the person writing it which presumably is a witness is writing with his own thoughts, emotions and perspectives therefore not in an objective way. So in a way there is no real possibility of having an unbiased textbook that explains thing as they were in actual fact.
ReplyDeleteWhereas politics I am not at all prone to having my own opinion I think I am too young to be aware and conscious of what is a good choice or not. I have my broad ideas for example that the people who represents Italy are corrupt and deceitful so if I had to vote I would be voting for the least worst which is not the ideal.
Flemina
History is one of the subjects I have always been fascinated by. It never stops teaching you something. It may be boring to many, but behind the numerous dates to remember there are interesting stories and motivations of events. History gives people, and countries an identity. It answers most questions on where we are from, and why are we living in this way today. To me it is not a matter of knowing how Hitler had his idea to exterminate thousands of Jews, but rather to understand the ways in which that idea has caused death, and chaos throughout many years. At Marymount, during my middle school years, thanks to the Italian Media program, I was able to study part of the Italian culture, and see historical events under an Italian perspective. However, choosing history as an IB student has prevented me from learning more on the history of my culture. During the IB history, students deal in particular with general history, in the sense that the most striking leaders such as Stalin, Hitler or Mao are studied, and also international events. As a result, I am unable to have a cultural and political identity. Studying the way in which Mao or Stalin have introduced communism, and the ways in which they imposed it, certainly does not help me understand my culture or have a political idea. There is no knowledge on politics and as a result apolitical students are inevitable. Since I have been grown up in a family in which political arguments are often discussed, I often try to understand, however it is very difficult since I lack any background information. I find this unfavorable especially in this particular moment, when my country is subject to many political discussions, and judged badly from other countries. I learn students from Italian schools, actively take part in political discussions, while if I am asked from someone whether I believe Italian politics to be good or bad I am unable to answer. History at school has not given me the possibility to create a political and cultural knowledge of my country. However I recognize that being an international school, and following an international program discuss the cultural and political issues of every nationality would be difficult. Therefore I have two options: either I start to get informed and interest, or I’ll just stay apolitical as I have been in these years.
ReplyDeleteVirginia
According to Howard Zinn, the "basic problem of traditional history books is that they’re nationalistic and they’re elitist.” It being nationalistic means that historians “look upon the world centered around us.” I believe that textbooks should be honest about our past, not that they aren’t now, but being honest about what populations have done in the world. Taking the point-of-view of Black people, Native Americans, women, children and other people who have been included in traditional history, can make a big differences about different people’s reactions to certain events or to certain circumstances they found themselves in. A textbook treating national history could avoid and could not avoid charges of patriotic propaganda. A textbook treating national history could avoid charges of patriotic propaganda, because the historian may have an unbiased view, or may be discussing a country that is not his, thus giving an eternal view from someone who did not experience the circumstances in that country. For my own political ideas, I’d have to admit that I am influenced greatly by my parents. My parents lean more towards Liberalism and discuss political problems all the time, and announce their political beliefs. I have grown up with this perspective, and not the Republican perspective. So therefore, I was surrounded by the notion that strong Right-leaning Republican ideas are less desirable as well as flawed. Now that I am older, and I will have the possibility to vote, next November, I will be given the chance to express my own political view and to be able to contribute to the person who I believe should be elected. The history classes that I attended at Marymount, and that I am still attending, have widened my view on history. I have gathered a vast amount of information to be able to digest and to be able to apply to other activities. Through my greater understanding of history, I have gained more knowledge of different countries and their cultures as well as customs. Analyzing certain sources from German newspapers, Russian newspapers and speeches from the leaders of certain countries at the time, broadens my understanding of how people back then, or how leaders in that generation, believed was the correct decision to make in the given circumstances they found themselves in. As a history student, I am given the possibility to view the leader’s decision making and to know the outcome of certain events.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is difficult to understand whether textbooks have an objective vision of what has happened in history. Textbooks shouldn’t be biased because they should talk about events in history but then leave students to interpret facts. What is written by humans, most of the time has a trace of bias, since for a human it is difficult to push aside his emotions and beliefs and write objectively. I think therefore that textbooks can try to be objective, but there will always be a very small trace of subjectivity, where politics plays a role. This does not mean that I believe in relativism, meaning that there is no absolute truth, since events in history have happened. One must look at the event from different perspectives, maybe also from different political views, read different textbooks, and try to find sources that describe an event in a very similar way. This will lead the student to be closer to the truth and be able to interpret events.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of objectivity is also related to charges of patriotic propaganda. When a historian writes about the history of his own country then emotions play a role. Even though he has studied how to write about events in history, it is still a problem to notice when patriotism overcomes the truth. History textbooks therefore should be written by more than two people, in this way the probability that they write in a biased way decreases, since they have the opportunity to reflect and discuss on each person’s opinion.
Finally I believe that there is no immediate solution to the problem of bias, meant in a political or patriotic way. The best thing to do is study different perspectives, and find a common truth, trying not to be influenced by one’s political or cultural background.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have always been interested in history as a subject because I feel that we need to learn where we have been, before we fully understand where we are going (in terms of different nations ideological perspective ect). I take IB History and every day I learn something new that sparks my interest. However I often can’t help but think where the information that I am being asked to memorize is coming from, and if its reliable. There is no way to confirm that the sources we use, or the materials we study aren’t written based on a bias or based on a personal ideology. Even primary sources in history can contain biases, for example when WW2 ended there were many different interpretations on the cause of its conclusion. Every primary source contains an individual’s personal interpretation of the event – therefore the information that is chosen to be taught is under constant bias. History cannot remove itself from value judgments.
ReplyDeleteMy own personal political values have mainly stemmed from what my parents and other family members surrounding me have voiced their opinions about. However as I am getting older I am beginning to formulate my own political views and embrace what I believe is just and right to believe in. I think I need more exposure to real world politics on a personal level to really understand which ideology I want to embrace.
My history class at Marymount hasn’t so much as clarified my own sense of cultural identity as it has opened my eyes up to others identities. The history program examines the causes of wars on many different levels and we are encouraged to take in to account many different historical interpretations in our writing. Our history class encourages us to look at all sides of things, which allows us freedom because we can use a variety of different perspectives.
History is one of the most biased subjects that individuals learn in school. I believe that the study of history schould be based on more then one resource, so multiple resources, to compare and contrast different versions and then we should come up with our own interpretation of the past. Who ever is going to write the history textbook, is going to write his version of the past basing his knowledge on primary and secondary resorces that have been written in the time of the event. I think that more or less the textbooks are not very biased if the topic is not relevant to the writer. For example if an italian is going to write the american history, in this case the bias can be limited and very small, but if an italian is going to write the history of Italy, hi is surely going to be biased by his ideas and believes. History can be objective b stepping put of politics if we are talking to unrelevant topics for the writer as i said before. There are two vays of writing history, one way is tring to state facts and so things that actually happened for sure, and another is to write a response and so say why this thing happende and all the possible "whys" that even happened and what were the causes. I still don't know my political idea, but i know that italian politics is not a good political example that should be followed. I am interested more on economics then on politics, even though they are connected. But as we move with history there are more and more versions of the events and so we never have one answer even if in reality there is. In order to understand history you need to check a lot of resorces and compare and contrast a lot of versions, only at that stage you can arrive at your own version of an event.
ReplyDeleteIvan
History cannot be unbiased because when it's written or described thorugh autobiographies, written proofs or through voice it always has the influence and judgement of an individual.Who creates history books has their own opinion about various topics therefore they will influence and manipulate history, in fact different books highlight differnt things for example the italian history book in the italian media mainly focuses on european history and demonstrates indirectly favoritism for italian unity by placing words such as Giuseppe Garibaldi's bravery and it influences my opinion making me subtly more patriotic. Instead the textbooks used in the english program in tenth grade, don't dedicate as much interest in the italian unity because it wasn't written by an italian in fact it didn't influence me as much as the previous textbook. I do believe that there are some facts such as dates and general issues that can't e manipulated but history does depend from people's point of view therefore it is easily manipulated.
ReplyDeleteWriting history can be a very difficult task, since it usually involves transmitting factual information in the most precise and objective way as possible. Many problems arise when writing history because of the many types of bias that could influence the way historic events are presented to us. Despite all the errors and biases that could be caused by extrapolating information from one source to another and by “filtering it” through various perspectives, even the actual historian, with his political, social and religious beliefs, could influence the objectivity and validity of historical writing. The ideas and opinions of the historian are not always evident, but by reading a history book we could sometimes found many elements suggesting not only the Era in which the writer lived, but also his own perspective and personality, all factors that influence his/her ideological beliefs and therefore determine the way he decides to express what, for him, is “historical truth”. But is it actually impossible to write history in an objective way? Probably it is not completely “impossible” to write history in an objective way, but it can be argued whether the fact of expressing “historical truth” is actually something achievable. In fact this kind of truth could never be considered as “absolute”, but only as a “portion of the truth”, that could anyway, also not be completely reliable. This is because the historian has to select the information he wants to report, so even this selection implies a certain degree of “subjective influence” upon a subject and of choosing “what truth” to display. This is why is very difficult for a textbook, for example, to avoid charges of patriotic propaganda when treating national history. This, of course, would most probably happen if the historian would write about the history of his/her own nation. It would be difficult to avoid exalting the exploits of important historical figures that contributed to make a nation to what it is now. Even all the events relating to important social and political changes of a particular nation would be difficult to be expressed in a detached and unbiased manner. This is because a historian could be influenced by his own national pride even when writing factual information. Even if very explicit and evident allusions to such propaganda are not easy to be found, even the simple reporting of information can be a way to convey patriotic propaganda. The historic writer, in fact, could influence the reader by choosing what events and information to report. Omitting an historic event while deepening another one, could have serious consequences relating to the way a particular historical event is perceived. In any case, it is also important to notice that it is not certain whether it is impossible for a textbook being about national history to avoid charges of patriotic propaganda. A method to avoid such propaganda could be by giving the same importance to every piece of information and historical fact transmitted in a particular textbook, even if it could be argued whether this could be something achievable. Moreover, even if the historian would be successful in writing unbiased national history, the information could be seen as transmitting patriotic spirit by a person that would be reading about the history of his/her own nation. In conclusion, charges of patriotic propaganda could possibly be avoided depending on the way the information is treated by the historian, but the actual effect of a written piece involving national history on the reader is something that cannot be predicted or avoided. A person could easily be driven to experience patriotic feelings and national pride when reading about historic events relating to his/her own nation.
ReplyDeleteBias in History, and especially in Politics
ReplyDeleteBelieving that history could reflect neutrality is similar to believing a science experiment could be lacking any error or uncertainty. It is indeed an utopian conviction. Excluding any act of deliberate manipulation on the past, bias is a direct consequence of a subjective and individual view on reality. Cultural heritage, national, political and religious backgrounds, without considering the personal uniqueness every single person possess, are only some of the factors which detach human perception of reality from that of a god-like, omniscient, and totally objective being. History, more than any other Area of Knowledge sees the human race as main indisputable central character; and being human beings fallible and extremely diverse in nature, bias has to be considered an inevitable defect of both historians and the “protagonists of the past”(who provide primary source documentations).
Given the unavoidability of bias, some types of partiality may be interpreted as intentional. Political bias is often condemned to this accusation. Politicization of historical facts, through history books or other information means(televisions, newspapers, exc.), not only is terribly common but has also a great effect in changing the past(since the main traces of the past can be retrieved inside our own minds). George Orwell, in his novel 1984, writes: “ ‘Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” On a smaller scale, everyday alterations of world news, depending on the source of information which provides them, modify the past, and, thus, change the vision of reality in the minds of many. Knowledge becomes a mere instrument of power, and truth, in its main criteria, being correspondence to reality, is modified to resemble the well-calculated end result it needs to reflect. It is possible to believe that today, if the Nazis had won the Second World War, Hitler’s ferocious and evil figure would have been replaced, in history books as well as in the conceptions of a world-wide population, by the image of a passionate and invincible leader.
By Mattia Barina
Even though history is not part of my IB program, i had the possibility to explore the subject especially in middle school. The media program required us to study an enormous quantity of history each of the three years, along with geography. The class was taught by an Italian teacher. I can say that the study of this subject, has, highly increased my sense of identity. I think that this has occurred, in the three years of middle school, due to the fact that my teacher was Italian. Even though the history I studied did not regard only Italy, a little focus on it was always mentioned. How Italy reacted to industrialism, the renaissance period, the two world wars, its participation in all these particular moments of time was always highly portrayed. I am not saying that my teacher was not directly successful in teaching the subject of history in an unbiased manner. However, it is difficult not to be more interested and more involved in matters in which your country of origin is involved, even if not as a direct protagonist. Maybe this is the reason why I actually enjoyed these three years of history : the great insight on Italy, and its reactions to the numerous wars, treaties, fights, peace, revolutions the world has experienced, has strengthened my sense of “where do I come from” , and my Italian identity. Now I know that Italy has been an active nation in the history of the world, both in positive and negative ways. I am aware of what my country’s past is, or at least, I hope I am. I gratefully accept to be Italian, both because I cannot change my identity, and also because I am proud to come from this country. I believe, under a cultural point of view that Italy is unique in its traditions. The positive ones, but also the negative ones. For example, I accept the view other nationalities have on the “Italian”, often referred to as the “sloppy” or boisterous one. They refer to us like this maybe because of some acts in the history of the world, in which Italy could have made more intelligent moves. Also, politically speaking, looking at Italy’s current status, I cannot consider my nation to be well structured as the government, its opposition, all move around a single person’s private issues. All these current events happening in Italy will be recorded in the future textbooks that next generations will read. In the same way I have gained, through both positive and negative aspects , a strong sense of identity thanks to history, the next generations will also do!
ReplyDeleteAs Luigi Pirandello wrote some years ago, "reality is relative". Whether we read a history textbook or we watch television news, I think we are always slightly affected by the opinion that the author of the reportage has on the event. Of course there can be a way of describing facts in a more objective way rather then in a more subjective one, but in my opinion it is almost impossible to talk about a past event without letting the audience understand what is your idea and how you perceive that event. Even little details or adjectives describing what you are talking about can influence how a reader understands the news or the history. Since WWI until now governments have taken under control many medias in order to inculcate ideas to the populations as they wished, starting with propaganda. Today the Italian president Silvio Berlusconi is the owner of Mediaset, one of the main channels for the Italian television. This is a current example of how reality we perceive (through television news) can be distorted by more powerful positions. And this is not all: governments modify history books used in schools. History should be thought at school in the most objective way as possible because in this way, young students can create their own political ideas and not be "obliged" to follow what governments want you to think. But this is impossible: first of all, governments affect how history is known; and secondly, in order to have a completely objective point of view of history, students should be analyzing more than one primary source per event (second sources could contain historian's political or cultural ideas). Theoretically, I am of the idea that students should be apolitical, study history and politics form an objective point of view and then, once a general knowledge is formed, he/she should take his/her won side in politics. I don't have any political idea. I learned history at school for ten years, I studied my country's past but I am absolutely ignorant about politics, because even thought I am interested in it, I have never learned at school. I know that in Italian school classes of politics and in general countries’ information, known as "lezione civica". This class isn't offered at the Marymount. Even though this international school open my mind to new ideas, to tolerance, to respect and acceptance, it didn't enrich my sense od political identity.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, history will never be able to step out of politics and become objective. History will never have a single truth which pleases everyone. This is the nature of society. Conflicts and differences will always be present within the members of a society. In the case of history, people will never agree on the particulars of an event. A determinant factor for this occurrence is politics. People will never support other points of view different from their one. This is why politics is the greatest factor which affects the differences in the realities of history. Different political factions will always try to affect the facts in history on their sides. Each faction will try to change history in their favor. Thus, politics will never allow for a single objective truth in history. History, nowadays and in the future, will always be biased in different ways. Another reason is that we will always try to find the historical option which is the best for us. We will never try to welcome other people’s points of view if they are different from our ones. On the other hand, one may argue that history is reliable because of the existing primary and secondary sources. Although, this doesn’t mean that the same sources are unbiased. For example, when Columbus invaded the Americas he reported facts revolving around the native populations which were not so reliable. He did so because he wanted to support Spain’s invasion. This fact made him report false details regarding his invasion. His political determination led him to change the realities of his invasion. This example leads us to reflect that we cannot trust all historical sources. Nowadays we trust history books and use them as a knowledge source. This is absurd. We are inculcated with ideas and facts which may not be true. This makes me reflect on the reliability of history and if we can really trust what current history books report.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning of high school, as well as my middle school years proved to be successful for me in the subject of history. The facts were many but the analysis was simple and the question of my cultural and political identity was yet to be formed. The last two years of IB History have proved to be challenging and a real struggle for me. Not only, but the IB strives for the subjects to be broad. The syllabus attempts to include everything, from a global point of view- especially when taking a standard level class. A political identity has definitely not begun to take form, apart from the broad understanding of democracy, dictatorship, communism etc. Living in Italy, the instruments to understand entirely the ideology behind the left or right wing parties are not given in our history class. In addition, Italy is not studied as a whole, or specifically- rather, it is included only when really needed. A sense of culture is not completely put through to me as an individual. This, in contrast to the Italian Media program that I took when I was in middle school that focused on Italian history as well as the geography of the heeled boot. Knowing about the country I live in, as well as the issues that it has had in the past with its surrounding countries definitely instilled within me a sense of identity and understanding of my people, my culture. To conclude, my sense of culture has developed, even though minimally through other elements other than history classes. On the other hand, my political ideas have not even been touched on. In order to learn about it my interest would have to lead my curiosity to study it myself, but it is not something that entirely tickles my fancy…
ReplyDeleteIt is hard for history books to be written from a neutral point of view. Actually, it is hard to write anything from a neutral point of view ! From a history book to any sort of writing, there will always be some way in which the author will dab into his or her point of view on the subject at hand. The person reading the piece of writing will be affected some way or another by the author's point of view, making them think, question and react to what has been printed on the page. Objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. This is how most authors aim to write the majority of their articles. It's a pity that such a goal is impossible to achieve. As long as human beings gather and disseminate news and information, objectivity is unrealizable. The brain has no actual, physical contact with the world. It doesn't even have pain nerves. Everything the brain knows or reacts to comes to it in only one way: through the senses. Humans, however, do not have to rely only upon their personal senses to gather information about the world. People may share reality, but the world constructed from that reality can and does vary according to each individual's perception. Each person's world conforms to its own set of culturally defined expectations and in such a way as to appear real enough to the 'creator' of that way of thinking. Preconceptions, prejudices, biases, cultural norms and mores, education, superstition, peer opinion, all play their role in an people creating their own realities. Added to what to say or what to show is how to say or show it. Selecting the order in which news stories appear can be an indication of their relative importance. The reporter also makes decisions in determining how to present the information in the news. However, the reporter's world view can alter the information, particularly on radio and television when the reporter is personally presenting the story. Most people are sensitive to voice tone or body language, and take them as cues how to react to words or pictures. A television reporter, by a slight smile or a slight lift of an eyebrow or a tilt of the head can alter the meaning of a word or an entire report; a radio reporter, by an ironic tone or a slight laugh under the words said can make words that would ordinarily be accepted as serious, absurd. Objectivity is not a possible goal in human interaction, and that includes journalism. As long as human beings gather and disseminate the news, then subjectivity will be the rule, not the exception.
ReplyDeletePeople all other the world will always attempt to convince you to think the same way they do. Newspaper, radios, and television and all other media, which should present an “impartial” and “objective” opinion, in reality, are projecting their opinions through facts and figures. These facts and figures make up history, as we know it today, and present the wide range of different perspectives that have been gathered during the course of the ages. I believe that within this chaos, an individual should attempt to find patterns in order to fully understand what is true, what could be true, and maybe what is outright false.
ReplyDelete“Objective” is a statement that is completely unbiased, without any prejudice: facts are exposed as they occur. Studying history in an objective manner is practically impossible, not only because it would be absurdly dull, but also because it would not truly be “history.” History intends to discover, collect, organize and present past events; it analyzes what has occurred. Presenting only an accumulation of facts would be fulfilling half of its true intention. The purpose of history is to provide an overview, to analyze critical moments, which caused antiquity to take a certain path, leading to our present day. Historians’ investigation and scrutiny of historical events is therefore vital to the study of history. A historian, a good historian, attempts to question the various motives, which have caused a situation, and whether the results were indeed inevitable. Their observations and deductions of a certain political situation can be of vital source to the comprehension of given circumstances. However, despite its benefits, History can never be taught in a truly unbiased manner. History is one of my higher-level choices in the IB program. The course allows students to not only gather the factual information, but to even observe it from different historians’ perspectives in order to shape an argument. We’re encouraged to research, study, and project our own opinion, but in a evidently supported manner.
Therefore, I am confident when I believe that every analysis, of even the most impartial observer of all, will never be truly without some sort of point of view. Even the greatest historian will criticize and highlight his own opinion at some certain point. Hence, no single analysis of any historian can ever be exclusively accepted as the sole correct answer. History posses’ divergent answers, characterized by arguments and counterarguments, and no convergent response can satisfy it.
Nothing will ever exist without any objective perspective, as long as a human mind has generated it; every written work created by man will always hold elements of the writers’ judgment. It is therefore, in our own interest and benefit, to research and gather the various points of view in order to shape our own beliefs and support our own thesis.
It is difficult to understand the truth in History since sometimes textbooks express different views. In my opinion it is important to see multiple views. It is almost impossible to reach an agreement that will satisfy two sides which are why I believe that all sides should be expressed. This is the neutral language, which textbooks must display.. Also this is more realistic since in the past there were people expressing different opinions of a certain event. This is why if students are able to read about these various points of views, they not only can further understand the topic in hand but also understand the thoughts and decisions made by the people at the time. This gives students much more insight on History and can also make it more interesting. Today, countries change the textbooks to make their own country seem like the victim. This is forcing students to believe in a certain way and does not allow them to make their own choice. It is not a fault for the country to want to include their side, but it is important that they also express other views. Also in many cases, a country specifically focuses on its own history. This narrows your views and doesn’t allow you to make any conclusions or even understand the events taken place in other countries. This will further influence your views in favor of your country since you are unaware of the reasons for choices made in other countries. History is a very important subject, and in order for it to remain reliable in classrooms, it needs to be expressed from multiple directions and on a larger scale.
ReplyDeleteBias, especially political bias, has always and will exist in the media and school textbooks. One of the reasons that bias may be present in these forms of media is geography IE. the areas where this information is distributed. People who live in the same area will often have a vague agreement on political, economical and social ideas. Therefore these areas will often interpret a certain historical event in a way that is parellel with their intentions and/or social, political and economic ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe interest of governments can also bring about bias in recalling historical events. At this point, we have to point out that the beliefs and decisions may or may not reflect the beliefs and wants of its citizens. Governments may often try to influence the interpretation of history in order to be in parallel with the interests of that particular government.
The basic nature of human beings also has an effect on the presence of bias. Every human being is different whether it is physically or mentally. So every human being thinks in a particular way that is different from other people. Therefore when examining a historical excerpt or a situation in the past, bias is inevitably going to occur.
Bias is unavoidable and objectivity in history will not occur simply due to the fact that different people in our world have different interests and different ones. In regard to textbooks and educational materials that are used in educating the future, we have to find a way to decrease the level of bias in our schooling systems. Our world is undergoing globalization and by doing so tolerance is going to be an element that human beings have to master as the world becomes more globalized. One way of implanting the idea of tolerance in the mind of the future generations. The idea of tolerance can only be thought if pupils of different nations, cultural and education backgrounds try to grasp new ideas as well as events that occurred in the past in a manner by which they are not impartial to an idea or thought.
As Carlos Santana once said “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” this, in my opinion, is a very powerful and true statement since we learn mostly from our mistakes, therefore if we don’t know that a particular or similar event has already been experienced and the relative consequences of that particular event, humans will be facing them sooner or later in their life. Nevertheless, history can be considered at the foundations of society since everything is based upon it, for example today’s social structure it is still based on the Roman Empire one’s created more than a thousand years ago. Hence, the present and the future revolve around the past. Throughout my entire course of studying I was never fascinated by history since I find it boring and irrelevant to the present but now that I’m at my senior year in high school I understand why it’s so important, because there will be no improvements if someone didn’t already experienced it for us. Therefore, I believe that I can be considered a handicapped person, I’m just one of many in currently generations, when an historical topic is brought in a conversation, due to my almost nonexistent historical background, even if I still have time to make up for it. This obviously can be related to political opinions since if an individual lacks of historical background it’s almost unable to capture the different ideals and reasons behind each gesture of respectively parties. For example in my case, I’m always listening to the news and the most debated issue is whether the political right is still able to govern Italy, due to my unsatisfactory knowledge I can’t determine whether I agree with one party or another one but I can definitely contribute to the discussion by informing myself on both party previous actions; hence, I will have a complete perspective of the events since I will be able to see both sides of the coin. However, I define myself as apolitical because I can’t relate to neither party maybe because I’m too young or maybe just because I’m too lazy to discover it, either way I truly believe that the best political view must be a mix of both since life is never only black or only white, but it’s the union of the two: grey.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is impossible for history to fully step out of politics and become objective. History is based so much upon our interpretations of the events, that it can always be used as a political tool to gain support or fuel another political objective. There are always bias in history, particularly if one is analyzing one’s national history. It is easier for history to become objective as time passes, however. The events of ancient Greece are not often used as political tools anymore, and therefore receive a more objective treatment as people have no personal attachment to that time. Therefore, there is a seeming relationship between politics and the objectivity of history: the less useful a historical event is for politics, the more objective its treatment and analysis. National history is in the most danger from politics, and an objective account is most likely not to be found unless written by a foreign historian with no formal ties to the nation.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it should be desirable for a student to be wholly apolitical. If a student is apolitical, it shows that they do not have views on subjects that are prevalent to modern society which is the opposite of what schools try to instill. The IB for one encourages interpretations and the development of personal views. I believe that information should be given to a student in as objective of a manner as possible, such as historical events, and allow the student to interpret the information and from opinions on it rather than telling them what to believe. Politics are a reflection of a person’s views, and without our opinions and freedom of thought we have lost our identity as individuals. Instead of being apolitical, a student should be encouraged to form their own points of view, but also be taught to be accepting of other views so that they may have a holistic view of a topic.
Therefore, I believe that while it is difficult for history to be given in an objective fashion due to politics and bias, it is important to allow students to form their own political views based upon the information they have been given. Instead of being told what to believe, a person should have the opportunity to analyze any claim and formulate their own view based on their own principles and former knowledge.
~Caroline Wiley
TOVE STENBERG
ReplyDeleteIs there a neutral language and manner for writing history?
If the history is experienced by an individual it, some people might say that the history certainly becomes biased by the person himself and the feelings he felt at the moment. But it does feel more real and reliable since somebody is telling me a story and would not exaggerate or lie about it. A historical book is based on facts, it could be eyewitness yes, but most of the times there are sources in all kinds. I would rather trust an eyewitness although researchers say that eyewitnesses are not reliable since they don’t completely remember the scene. My personal opinion is that I trust a person who tells me how it was to grow up in a certain area of life. A problem is though that it only applies to ONE point of view but we want a more general point of view about how it was in that certain era. Another problem is that, how can we find out what happened many generations back or at the Stone Age? We could trust a piece of paper or a diary, but not fully. The idea is that the person who really experienced it can fill the story with emotions, feelings memories fear, sights, the landscapes, the picture becomes more alive and real for us. For example, when I read about the Roman Empire I can’t imagine how it was, but when I moved here and I entered Colosseo I got a feeling of how it was and the history suddenly came alive. Think about having a Roman soldier talking to me, telling me about his life and I could SEE it with my inner eye. It might not be neutral writing of history but on the contrary, how can It be biased if the event is experienced, how can the person bias the event he just experienced, take this example. A soldier is experiencing the life in the trenches for a couple of years. He then describes the event for his granddaughter who is me. Why would the man want to bias it, turn his hate toward the enemies against them, exaggerate because of political beliefs? He had a terrible time, and now he is telling me about it and I can see how it was to actually be there. I think it is neutral because he is not telling me anything other than what he saw and felt. Some might say it is not neutral because he is writing his own opinion about something but it should be more general. For me, the most neutral way of writing history is to write about one’s own experiences and life events.
Can history step out of politics and become objective? Is there a neutral language and manner for writing history?
ReplyDeleteI personally believe it to be impossible for history to step out of politics, simply beacuse one of the greatest parts of historyt is in facty the political situation. the second world war would never have occurred in history without the existence of nazism as a political idea, or fascism in italy and spain. Stalin, Lenin, the communists, wouldn't have instituted the gulags and took land from the capitalists. without politics, very little of history remains. For this reason, eliminating politics from history is impossible. Nevertheless, I believe textbooks should be able to use an appropriate language when describing historical events, such that the events be described as objectively as possible. History shoulnd't be taught by opinions, but by nude fatcs. Students should be taught everything in history, every different point of view, so they are capable of developing their own perspective.
I believe it is hard for a textbook treating national history to avoid patriotism as it is normal to flaunt positive characteristics or events and to diminish the negative ones. I am personally proud of my country but in telling its history I would be objective and admit the flaws or mistakes done in the past. I don't think history can step out of politics and become objective as the person who will write it has to come from a country and will believe in certain things which will bias his persepective. In reading history one should not find positive or negative judgements as it would influence the readers. The facts should be exposed in an unbiased, objective way and should not be affected by value judgements. Nobody's values should be promoted, only many perspectives should be given, in order for the reader to assess his own beliefs and values based on what he reads and understands of the events and based on his mindset and his own views. I believe the use of neutral words would be a correct manner to write history. For example if psychologist cataloguing facial expressions used the word smirk instead of saying "the contraction of such muscle" they would influence a person's perception of that expression. I am not conscious of my own political ideas and I believe I don't have any because I dislike politics and anything that relates to it. Due to this I don't think that political views should be influential in student life. Also I do not have History as a course but I did study Storia in middle school and West Civ in 9th and 10th grade and it personally didn't clarify anything to me as I really dislike it and so didnt really reflect on it.
ReplyDeleteChiara D. A.
Every one has a different way of thinking and most people will always want others to believe what they believe. For this very reason they will attempt as much as possible to make their beliefs known and every way possible. This then leads to bias which of course we can not always tell because people’s ideas originate from their personal interests, cultural backgrounds etc. Just like the example given above, concerning the Italian Government and its selection of history textbooks, higher authorities are biased to alter information for a variety of reasons maybe to protect their regime and probably they think it is best not to disclose certain information to the public. The Third Reich in Germany must have destroyed information concerning the abominable acts that happened during their Regime. I personally think that in order to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources we must be able to compare a variety of them and look at the extent to which they are similar. This way we at least have an idea of what the past was like even though we were not present at the time. From my experience in taking History at Marymount, I must say that it has opened my mind to different perspectives of history and I appreciate them all though now I know what to consider as reliable and unreliable.
ReplyDeleteCan history step out of politics and become objective?
ReplyDeleteDo you think that you don’t have any political ides?
In my opinion it is impossible that history can step out of politics and become objective because usually history talks and it is based on politics. Many events that are described in the History books talk about political situations and the problems that politics caused. Many things that happened in the past are causes of the bad political situation. Due to this it is not possible that History can be separated from politics and become objective.
Also it is well known that history is not objective. History is based on the different interpretations and points of view of an event. Bias was, and always will be present in History. History is written based on primary and secondary sources, where primary sources are sources written by someone who was there at the time, while secondary source is a second – hand account of what happened. But both sources can be bias because all people see things in a different way and the present them differently.
This means that not all secondary sources are objective. All this proves that it is impossible to totally prevent biases in history but you can always distinguish between less and more bias source.
I never really thought about my political ideas and opinions. I used to follow and read about politics in my country but since I have moved to Rome I am not that interested in politics anymore. I think that every young person should be familiar with what is going on at least in their country as well with the politics in their country. It is not that important to express your personal opinion about politics, but you should always have it. I think this also helps us educate more, build our personality and our opinion.
Marija
Our first experience with History is that it is a course that we have to take in school and decide to continue in order to graduate. As a junior and senior high school student we are confronted with American history, state history and perhaps even a general course in western civilization or world history. We didn't have a choice. And the fact that we are forced to take history puts us on the offensive. We begin to build that grandiose brick wall that will prevent us from getting anything important out of history. Why study history in the first place? What could history offer? Well, simply, everything has a history, whether we like it or not. Even history itself has a history. Try hard as we might, we can't escape the past. We can't let go of the past. And we celebrate the past all the time. We may have been told that we study history so that we won't repeat the mistakes of the past, I strongly disagree with this statement. If we have learned from the past then over the centuries we ought to have accumulated so much knowledge that things like war, poverty, injustice and immorality ought not to exist. Of course, we've still got a long way to go in this respect. You may also have heard that everything repeats itself, so if we study the past, we can be sure to know something of the future. I don't hold to this view either. To insist that the study of the past will reveal something of the future is a nice idea, but what I really want to know about is the present. History cannot "tell" the future. History can, on the other hand, reveal all that is the present. By studying history you can study anything for the simple reason that everything has a history: ideas, wars, numbers, races. Any subject of study needs justification: its advocates must explain why it is worth attention. Most widely accepted subjects, and history is certainly one of them, attract some people who simply like the information involved.
ReplyDeleteA history textbook may be biased depending on the country, and it can therefore alter the point of view of the student who are studying from it. There are naturally certain historical facts which no matter what opinion one may have, they will not change, for example; 9/11. There should in theory be a neutral viewpoint when studying history, so that each individual is able to create and format their own point of view, rather than follow what the textbook portrays. This should be the same regarding politics. Instead of having the environment one is in somehow convince a person to follow a certain political idea; each individual should be exposed to both sides of politics and then afterwards make their own decision. I personally have no political idea. I don’t support a political party, for various reasons, one of which is that I have not been exposed to enough information regarding each side. Therefore, I believe that history should not be at all biased when studying it, since each individual has the right to choose what to believe, and what to think is right or wrong. History should be a subject of pure facts, and information, it is an informative subject, not a place to enforce ideology.
ReplyDeleteHistory is a subject that enthralls me. For me History is a way to gain more knowledge, as well as to understand different perspectives on a particular topic. In today’s world, it is almost impossible, to find unbiased books. All History textbooks will be biased to a certain degree, but this can be beneficiary for the readers, to understand certain aspects of the topics. It is not necessary for one to have a very good idea on politics, yet it is appreciated if all individuals have a general idea of the politics of their nation and are able to identify their right politicians, without being manipulated. I do have my own political ideas. My history classes at Marymount have not particularly helped give me a sense of cultural and political identity, as history in Marymount is mainly European History, and since I am an Indian, my cultural and political identity have not been established through these classes.
ReplyDeleteHistory as a subject is very important as it gives a nation its identity. When studding history all points of view should be analyzed, the important thing is that the source shows who it was written by and is not taken as the only point of view. This would give the younger generations the full story to enable them to make decisions and come to their own conclusion. In both cases in Italy and America history is chosen to be seen in one light. The whole history should be open to the public allowing them to decided what they need and don’t, making it evident that there are different perspectives. In on case should the government decided to rewrite history to view their country in a better light as this would be lying to the population, and depriving them from there identity.
ReplyDeleteWhen studying history in school one needs to take into account many aspects. Such as looking at time period and how that might change the point of view of the reader. It is hard for a text book to not portray its perspective as everyone does it day to day, with just their choice of words. The best text books are those that show their opinion with showing other scholars that defend them as well as ones that don’t. I don’t think the history that the IB offers makes one understand politics as you look at a different time period. As well as looking at different countries, even though it might not help you understand how things work today it gives you a basis and help you understand where it originated from. Being introduced to the topic at school some students may choose to research more on the subject. At the same time though I believe ones political view revolves more around the view of you r family and what you have been exposed to at an early age and from there on one makes their own decisions.
-sorry this is late, i was in germany and just saw the post! D: -
ReplyDeleteHistory was one of my favorite subjects in the first two years of highschool, yet I did not choose the IB History path.
As i learned in the past, a textbook must almost always give an objective point of view to all history. This is not always possible, as primary and secondary sources are often subjective. It is almost necessary not to have any propaganda in a textbook for it to be accurate and it is possible to read a non bigoted textbook. Even when the chapters of history may teach you the propaganda of the time, it should not agree or disagree with it.
Writing history is probably not as easy as it seems and needs a lot of editing and most of all, understanding. Things can be said in many different ways, which can create many different perspective to one event. History must be written in a manner that transfers the message to the reader thoroughly.
I am actually very conscious about my political ideas. I try to be "moral and politically correct" when i express my opinions about politics, but at times it is difficult to speak without being one sided. I have many political ideas and watch many news stations frequently. I find it enjoyable to know what is occurring in our world, politically and economically. At marymount I feel that I have learned to be more tolerant and less opinionated, but my ideas mostly come from my house hold and myself.
I believe a textbook which treats national history cannot avoid charges of patriotic propaganda. Already from the word “national” we understand that it is being written from someone of that nation or country. It is very difficult to be objective and sometimes it is also impossible. Nations may want to appear to their people as always powerful, always right and therefore may only tell certain aspects while in reality it hides many agreements and actions. History is mainly the result of what government does, what it says, and what historians write. When we read a history book or a primary source it will always be written from a particular perspective excluding some details. For example, if we participate in an event and a friend asks us to tell it. We will never be able to say 100% of what happened but mostly if you ask it to another person he or she will have a slightly different version. We can conclude that words are limitative because what we see, feel, touch can be expressed only to a certain limit, therefore, history, in which many times the historian are not on the place in which things have happened narrate a story based on some facts but also on what the soldiers or the government says, which may not be always correct or objective. History, consequentially in my opinion can’t be objective.
ReplyDeleteAs for my political ideas, I am very interested in economics and sub sequentially in political decision which many times are the primary causes of changes in business. When I look at a particular event, an example is the Italian crisis, if I read articles from Italian newspapers there articles and articles which discuss how Berlusconi has failed, how Italy’s debt is rising but also that it will recover. If I read for example The Economist it treats Berlusconi and Italy as clowns that promise promise and never do anything. I arrived at the conclusion that foreign newspapers see Italy’s situation from a more objective point of view which sometimes may be wrong but they interpret what Italy does. Differently, Italian newspapers differ from the ones which are against Berlusconi and therefore say how bad he is and the newspapers for Berlusconi. Therefore, in the end I personally prefer reading about Italy from an outsiders point of view and in the most objective way by looking at the graphs.
GB
History has always been a subject that interested and fascinated me. This mainly is because I think that we need to learn what happened before we were born and what is occuring around us right now, both in our nation and outside, in order to fully understand and be who ever we will be in the future. However, a thought that always comes up in my mind is: where the information that we read about in history books come from and if its really reliable as everyone thinks. What if these information, that everyone think that are correct and reliable, actually aren't. What will happen to the society and how would this affect our knowledge and reliability? no one can be 100% sure that the sources from which we gain our historical information are real and based on a fair point of view. In my opinion, as I think in everyone elses, history books should not be based on a bias or personal point of view. This is because, most of the times even primary sources in history can contain biases, this is because when an important event in history ends everyone will have a different point of view and so everyone will tell the story as he/she thinks the best way is. Every personal story wil contain an individual’s personal interpretation of the event, so what we may think is reliable, since it can be considered a primary source, may (at the same time) be based on bias interpretations of the event.
ReplyDeleteAnother really good example of bias, is our own personal values. Of course, every one of us will have some different thoughs from every other individual on certain things or values. However, the base of our own personal points of views will always be affected by our point of reference: our parents and family. The same thing happens in the every day society, where the opinions of the people that have more experience than us, will be able to change, if not completely just a bit, our own opinions. With this statement, I mean that history books will always give us a sense of realiability since we give for granted that the information that the book will contain will be right. This, in some way affects our own thoughts and knowledge, since if we give for granted that every source that we will be able to obtain in order to learn something is correct, our minds will be limited due to this unfair conviction. However, as people start to get older their own personal views will strenghten, and as a consequence they will defend their ideas always more, and at the same time will start to believe in what they really think is right.
My general knowledge until now, hasn’t so much clarified my own sense of cultural identity, it has opened my eyes to many new things, but it still didn't give me a clear idea on many different values. Our TOK class is now studying the many different types of knowing. We study all this through many different methods, and in this way, this type of study has really opened up my mind, making it more ready to new ideas and perspectives.
Alessia
Can history stay out of politics and stay objective?
ReplyDeleteDo you think that you don´t have any political ideas?
History is known as the study of the past, meaning that everything which was involved in our past is part of history. However knowing that almost everything which happened at a specific time was influenced by politics, even if it might of just have been in a micro scale, shows that history was cannot be only objective. As everything affects everything in a sense, therefore, no history cannot stay objective.
I´m am not into politics at all, I don´t vote and I don´t pay a lot of attention to what the politicians do around us, however I believe everyone is influenced by everyone. Meaning that if anyone had ever listened to a politician he or she was influenced by him or her. With that said I think I do have political ideas even if I don’t have the intention of having them, because I have heard politicians. It might be a subconscious thing.