What determines the way in which history is written?
Post with the most interesting/compelling/insightful part of your response that you formed in class. Please comment/constructively critique another response as well.
My response arguments: 1.The emotion that the person writing about an historical event might have changes how they tell that story. I person with string emotional ties to something will tell it with more conviction than someone writing from an outside perspective. My example was the Great Hunger in China (idk exactly what it was called?). My counter argument was that if an event was horrific or it doesn't natter what emotional ties the writer has to it, it's still understood as bad. You cant write about millions of people dying in a good way. 2. The time period of the history impacts how history is written. The first written history from Mesopotamia was a time when everything that occurred was cited to the gods. The writing was more religious based. As time went on, people didn't need to record history from a religious standpoint. History became more factual and informative because society was making achievements in knowledge (scientific knowledge specifically). A counter argument would be that the start of written history didn't incorporate religion because it was for recording purchases and whatnot but this isn't true as religion would be the framework for writing well into the medieval times as the only people who could really read and write were those in the church.
A counter to your counter: (1) I agree, of course, that millions of people dying is a horrific thought, but phased differently, millions of people dying can seem like the price one has to pay to "cleanse" the world. This propaganda has been used before. (I don't know if that's really a counter but I couldn't help myself--wanted to counter a counter.)
It depends on who is writing the history. Take a autobiography and a biography for example. Both authors are writing about the same person. Their are some facts about the person and the events in that person's life that can not be refuted. The two may have different perspectives on the cause and significance of the event. If a president is speaking of his life and a war occurred during his presidency,he will try to portray his decision to go to war in the best possible light. He may even try to make excuses. The person writing the biography, however, will more than likely speak of the war in terms of the consequences it had on the American people. But this also leads into time period effecting how history is written. The president would not know the long term effects his decisions would have on the country. But a person writing the biography 30 years after the presidency can accurately describe the pros and cons of the war and all of the president's other decisions. A general example of an autobiography would be one written by Malcolm X. Malcolm X had a very controversial way of going about the civil rights movement. He disagreed with MLK because he did not see the strength in peaceful demonstrations. He would defend his use of violent protests to help African Americans gain rights but a historian writing a biography on the work of Malcolm X could argue that peace movements were actually more effective and that protests orchestrated by Malcolm X did not help the movement in a positive way.
I think you have a good point. The time that certain events are being analyzed is a great determinate into how the event is praised or not. To improve on the overall response just be sure to provide a counter example. Other than than it's all on point :-)
I agree with the previous responses that the time period and the authors emotions determine how history is written. Two other factors that I find contribute to how history is written are the intended audience and along with that, the goal in mind for the piece. Some might use the writing of history to persuade a reader to view an event a certain way, and even if the author does not have malicious intent and wants to be objective, the author's opinions can still shine through in his or her writing. Written history can be used as propaganda... just more things to consider. :)
The person writing it is the main influence over the credibility and rightness of the account. There are biases, misunderstandings/interpretations and propaganda. As they say, History was written by the victors. This again reminds me of Orwell's 1984 in which history is actually changed to suit the current government. I think this happened in hunger games...maybe. Also the way that we portray people in past because of there descisions depends on the time period we discuss it. For example, my sister was taught all about how George Washington was a bad person because he had owned slaves. Almost anyone worth mentioning in Washington's times had slaves. You cannot judge him based on the morals of today. (And of course the good he has done for our country far out weighs any mistakes he had made. I mean come on its G. Wshington).
My response arguments:
ReplyDelete1.The emotion that the person writing about an historical event might have changes how they tell that story. I person with string emotional ties to something will tell it with more conviction than someone writing from an outside perspective. My example was the Great Hunger in China (idk exactly what it was called?). My counter argument was that if an event was horrific or it doesn't natter what emotional ties the writer has to it, it's still understood as bad. You cant write about millions of people dying in a good way.
2. The time period of the history impacts how history is written. The first written history from Mesopotamia was a time when everything that occurred was cited to the gods. The writing was more religious based. As time went on, people didn't need to record history from a religious standpoint. History became more factual and informative because society was making achievements in knowledge (scientific knowledge specifically). A counter argument would be that the start of written history didn't incorporate religion because it was for recording purchases and whatnot but this isn't true as religion would be the framework for writing well into the medieval times as the only people who could really read and write were those in the church.
A counter to your counter: (1) I agree, of course, that millions of people dying is a horrific thought, but phased differently, millions of people dying can seem like the price one has to pay to "cleanse" the world. This propaganda has been used before. (I don't know if that's really a counter but I couldn't help myself--wanted to counter a counter.)
DeleteMarissa Smith
ReplyDeleteIt depends on who is writing the history. Take a autobiography and a biography for example. Both authors are writing about the same person. Their are some facts about the person and the events in that person's life that can not be refuted. The two may have different perspectives on the cause and significance of the event. If a president is speaking of his life and a war occurred during his presidency,he will try to portray his decision to go to war in the best possible light. He may even try to make excuses. The person writing the biography, however, will more than likely speak of the war in terms of the consequences it had on the American people. But this also leads into time period effecting how history is written. The president would not know the long term effects his decisions would have on the country. But a person writing the biography 30 years after the presidency can accurately describe the pros and cons of the war and all of the president's other decisions. A general example of an autobiography would be one written by Malcolm X. Malcolm X had a very controversial way of going about the civil rights movement. He disagreed with MLK because he did not see the strength in peaceful demonstrations. He would defend his use of violent protests to help African Americans gain rights but a historian writing a biography on the work of Malcolm X could argue that peace movements were actually more effective and that protests orchestrated by Malcolm X did not help the movement in a positive way.
I think you have a good point. The time that certain events are being analyzed is a great determinate into how the event is praised or not. To improve on the overall response just be sure to provide a counter example. Other than than it's all on point :-)
DeleteI agree with the previous responses that the time period and the authors emotions determine how history is written. Two other factors that I find contribute to how history is written are the intended audience and along with that, the goal in mind for the piece. Some might use the writing of history to persuade a reader to view an event a certain way, and even if the author does not have malicious intent and wants to be objective, the author's opinions can still shine through in his or her writing. Written history can be used as propaganda... just more things to consider. :)
ReplyDeleteThe person writing it is the main influence over the credibility and rightness of the account. There are biases, misunderstandings/interpretations and propaganda. As they say, History was written by the victors. This again reminds me of Orwell's 1984 in which history is actually changed to suit the current government. I think this happened in hunger games...maybe. Also the way that we portray people in past because of there descisions depends on the time period we discuss it. For example, my sister was taught all about how George Washington was a bad person because he had owned slaves. Almost anyone worth mentioning in Washington's times had slaves. You cannot judge him based on the morals of today. (And of course the good he has done for our country far out weighs any mistakes he had made. I mean come on its G. Wshington).
ReplyDelete