When History Isn't - (Growing trend toward biased opinion disguised as historical truth)

In 2000, Michael Bellesiles published what the nation took to be a groundbreaking work of history. His book, Arming America, argued that Revolutionary Americans disdained gun ownership. He said the idea that individuals had a right to bear arms came from a myth created in the post Civil War era in order to justify the new boom in gun ownership.

The book was an instant hit. Walter Wink of Christian Century flatly stated that the book "debunks this myth [of widespread gun ownership]" (March 21, 2001). In Insight on the News, Phillip Gold called it "a brilliant history with unintended relevance to contemporary debates" (Oct 23, 2000). Yet, when someone finally investigated Bellesiles's claims, his entire argument fell apart, not to mention Wink and Gold's words of praise (see "Fawning Critics Don't say Book was a Fraud" on Fox News.com). This led some to ask why reputable scholars hailed the book in the first place.

One answer illuminates a growing trend inside the field of history: the Rise of Agenda Driven Scholarship.

History is supposed to deliver more than a fanciful tale. The average person who picks up a history book on any topic expects to find within its pages some modicum of truth. That is what sets history apart from fiction. It is a reasoned reconstruction of past events based upon a dispassionate reading of evidence. As a result, people expect to be able use history to make real time, real world decisions.

Unfortunately, some historians have rejected this approach. For them, the spread of the Postmodern Movement transformed historical inquiry. Every form of Postmodernism is based, at some level, on relativism, the idea that there is no knowable, objective truth. In terms of historical study, this means that there is no evidence that can be called true, nor can historians separate themselves from their work and think objectively.

The result is that these newer historians have stopped trying to do good history, and have moved on to promote personal agendas through their work. Since they believe that no evidence is true, it doesn't matter how they use it. For instance, Bellesiles referenced sources destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Are they bothered by the fact that they approach their subjects with preconceived notions that they refuse to test? Certainly not. According to them, objectivity is impossible to attain. So, many newer histories dealing with race or gender, for instance, begin with the unchallenged premise that in any given situation, discrimination has already occurred, no matter what the evidence might say.

The trouble comes to a head when these authors deal with the public. Postmodern historians bank on the well-deserved reputation their more sensible colleagues built and maintain. Though postmodernists themselves know that their work is anything but tested and objective, they allow the public to assume it is. The result? Readers devour a book that in reality is nothing more than creative opinion, and then treat it as the gospel truth of history.

It is only a matter of time before Postmodern history collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. Until that happens, how should we approach history tainted with falsehood? Some basic philosophical commonsense will serve admirably:

1. Ask questions about the author(s). Who are they? Have they written other books? How do they approach the topic? Are there any ideas they are presuming that we should know about? For instance, books by vocal political advocates should be taken with stock in a salt mine.

2. Ask questions about the content. How do they support their arguments? Be certain to use known facts to critically examine their claims. Do their conclusions actually follow from their evidence? Is the book internally coherent? An amazing number of sloppy historians never bother to think through their own positions. Book reviews can be very helpful. Townhall.com maintains a good selection of conservative reviews

3. Read the footnotes carefully. Are they quoting from firsthand accounts or another historian's book? Do they seem to lean heavily on one particular source? If a book does not provide easy access to sources, it may have something to hide.

4. Read the Preface, Introduction, and Conclusion carefully. Authors are much more open in these sections, and let the readers see a little of their minds (in some cases, a lot). Paying particular attention here will often alert you to danger, as well as reinforcing the point of the entire work.

Of course, the short answer is to read and think carefully about all important truth claims. This habit is more useful now than ever before; when some scholars refuse to think, it is up to the reader to do it for them.

About the Writer: Brian Melton is an assistant professor of history at Liberty University. His publications include "The Town that Sherman Wouldn't Burn," in the summer 2002 issue of the Georgia Historical Quarterly, as well as numerous book reviews and encyclopedia articles. Dr. Melton is currently writing a biography of Civil War general Henry Slocum. He can be reached at bmelton@liberty.edu

This is the first time I understood that they justify false history with the idea that no history ever written is "true" history. I always knew that history was written by the victors, and in that sense told the side of the victors. Hence a history by the Huessions of the Crossing of the Delaware would differently than that of George Washington. But it is particularly vicious that modern historians simply change what they wish in support of their agenda.

This is the first time I understood that they justify false history with the idea that no history ever written is "true" history.

How can any written history ever be considered "true"?

If history should be a scientific inquiry based upon evidence, any particular written history must be seen as tentative, as the best account of past events justified by the evidence as we currently understand it, but it also must be subject to review and revision based upon the discovery of additional evidence.

There can be no such thing as "true" history.

There can be no such thing as "true" history.

I think we agree, there could be a history that was a statement of facts. That would be true history no?

But if the facts are colored by the way they are told then the history is slanted. Thus, the Southern soldiers were honorable men who fought fairly and surrendered when their cause was lost. The northern soldiers burned and raped and pilaged their way to a victory. So the history of the War between the states has more than one history. But we can all agree on the facts, and good historians try different colors until they find one that seems to fit best.

In the SF earthquake of 1906 the water hydrants did not work. The contractor who installed them submitted a design that could have withstood the quake but then he pocketed the cash and bought cheaper materials so the water mains broke. These facts could be checked. When facts can be verified then history can also be verified. Of course the facts can be reviewed again if additional evidence comes to light. That has to be allowed for to. But we all should do a little fact checking on our own when they tell us the Founding Fathers never intended for our republic to give the vote to women or free the slaves.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.