Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Tax-chick

As a history graduate, I have to wonder whether it is a great idea to manipulate history to suit an agenda, whatever that agenda might be. It should be about analyzing the facts without preconceptions or spin....


9 posted on 04/18/2010 8:15:56 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Facts have to be presented in some kind of context. Is it realistic to think, for example, that history texts would treat all wars as if all the parties were morally equivalent? And no text can present all the known facts about a subject - there simply isn’t time or room. Selection of the facts to be included, as this article discusses, is part of the perspective of the text or course.


12 posted on 04/18/2010 8:59:48 AM PDT by Tax-chick (There's a perfectly good island somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
As a history graduate, I have to wonder whether it is a great idea to manipulate history to suit an agenda, whatever that agenda might be. It should be about analyzing the facts without preconceptions or spin....

That's not realistic. It's what do the facts say that is difficult. e.g. was Julius Caesar a great general and statesman or a cruel tyrant? Or both?

Historians have come down on both sides. And a few saying "somewhere in between".


13 posted on 04/18/2010 9:16:30 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
"As a history graduate, I have to wonder whether it is a great idea to manipulate history to suit an agenda, whatever that agenda might be. It should be about analyzing the facts without preconceptions or spin...."

All history must, of necessity, be told from some perspective or other, and the most popular perspective is that of the readers' own backgrounds and interrests.

Thus Americans, Brits, French, Germans, etc., etc., are each interested in their own "take" on history -- versions which emphasize their own culture's accomplishments, the courage of their explorers & soldiers, the holiness of their own saints, the rightness of their causes, etc.

And when, as happens from time to time, a country ends up on the wrong side of history, then the books should explain that with great sympathy and enough details so the readers come to understand how the "good guys" sadly went down the wrong path.

I could list any number of examples, but for starters we might consider the US Civil War as told from the perspectives of, say, Southern soldiers or Union politicians or slaves. These are going to be very different histories.

Nothing wrong with that, imho, as long as it's all done honestly, accurately and fairly. Historians, of course, are interested in every one of these stories.

Our problem is that these days so many history text books are under the control of leftists who see history as a weapon to advance their own political agendas against the country's children they are supposed to be teaching.

20 posted on 04/18/2010 12:54:32 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson