- This topic has 6 voices and 26 replies.
-
Posts
-
This book is on sale right now:Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got WrongDespite its provocative title, the book description makes me think it might be guilty of the "crimes" it implicates. Has anyone read it before? For example, take the following from the description on the page I linked to:
Marred by an embarrassing combination of blind patriotism, mindless optimism, sheer misinformation, and outright lies, these books omit almost all the ambiguity, passion, conflict, and drama from our past.In this revised edition, packed with updated material, Loewen explores how historical myths continue to be perpetuated in today's climate and adds an eye-opening chapter on the lies surrounding 9/11 and the Iraq War.
Just from that do you get a sense of an ideological perspective from which the book is coming?Incidentally there's a sale at Barnes & Noble online right now and a number of history books seemed to be priced under $4....
My $0.02…[rant]Eurocentric gripe is based on the idea history is (was) all about old dead white guys; given that the literates at that time had a certain point of view (and were old white guys) that is what got recorded... multicultural apologists and panderers about 20-25 years ago go on the kick that history had to show all sides from a less biased point of view. While they are correct (to a point) generally the bias is now overboard the other direction; discounting everything that isn't eastern, of color, or non-traditional.Couple of years back we had a flap getting a history text adopted when a group went to court because the book stated that Hindus in ancient India thought the caste system was a good idea and that women had very few rights. Imagine that... protesting the truth in a textbook. 8)Far as the Lies... issue; checked my library and found it must be one of the books I meant to buy. The truth is that much of what we learn (if we aren't careful to check it out) is, if not a lie, often a mis-remembered truth... the story about John Hancock's signature for instance... was it really so Geo III could see it w/o specs? Much disagreement on this. Textbooks in public (and private) schools don't really get much peer review by anyone but teachers... the authors are pretty free to dispense any pap they see fit and it's up to the ones of us that care to debunk them. Often this leads to questions about what we know and why we disagree with the books.[/rant]
I cannot speak for the new version, but the old one (1994) is accurate though slanted left in terms of its conclusions and what is emphasized. But, do we truly have a right to expect our historians to be truly objective? Shouldn't we emphasize looking bias as opposed to objectivity? For instance, disease is a crucial factor in Native/European interactions... rarely is it mentioned in school texts... A general lack of primary sources.... emphasis on the situation being foreordained. History is controversal, not a predictable soap opera...
Is this term "Eurocentrism" and the criticism of it a relatively new thing?
No it's been around for a few decades....probably the late 1960's at least if not earlier.
Is this term "Eurocentrism" and the criticism of it a relatively new thing?
No it's been around for a few decades....probably the late 1960's at least if not earlier.
Well, that's in my lifetime, so I'll still consider it relatively new. ;DThanks, though. A lot of things started in the 60's.
But, do we truly have a right to expect our historians to be truly objective? Shouldn't we emphasize looking bias as opposed to objectivity?
Of course we can expect historians to be objective, or at least we can expect them to strive for objectivity/impartiality. The job of a historian is not to acknowledge bias in his work, rather it is to attempt to eliminate bias as much as is practical. I won't get into the impossibility of eliminating all bias as that is axiomatic, but we should not, as historians, throw up our hands and say that since bias cannot be eliminated we should revel in it. The best way to eliminate bias or come close is to examine historical events from the perspective of all involved in the events. In this manner, a balanced account can be presented and it also works to minimize the bias of the author.
Admitting bias is not the same as being resigned to its existence. Donald and I talked about this in relation to postmodernism and its emphasis, even revelry, of bias in everything we do, think, or say.
The best way to eliminate bias or come close is to examine historical events from the perspective of all involved in the events. In this manner, a balanced account can be presented and it also works to minimize the bias of the author.
I think this task, however, is beyond the scope of the historian's capability. How does one examine the holocaust during World War II? Does one get into Hitler's argument as justification for it and present it on equal footing with the plight of the millions of Jews killed? Or would that go overboard for the historian? Does one go into the historical anger on behalf of radical Islamists to construct their argument for terrorism? Does one even use the word "terrorism" at all? In the end I think that there is no true way to present all perspectives so as to eliminate bias, and minimizing bias could be only relative to the most popular of opinions. At best the historian will pick and choose according to his own biases. I don't think this is necessarily wrong.
I think this is why we as historians need to be open to an opposing view or the “other side” and not dismiss these views as necessarily wrong just because we disagree. However, if these views are wrong, well, then they're wrong. The subject of Hitler would be nearly impossible to justify as right, but a subject like the negative or positive aspects of European colonialism in Africa would not.
I think this is why we as historians need to be open to an opposing view or the "other side" and not dismiss these views as necessarily wrong just because we disagree. However, if these views are wrong, well, then they're wrong. The subject of Hitler would be nearly impossible to justify as right, but a subject like the negative or positive aspects of European colonialism in Africa would not.
IMO though I would feel fine dismissing an alternative view simply because I disagree. I think I should present the idea, but once I analyze it in light of the facts I could dismiss it.I would not justify Hitler's actions but I admit that some people may think otherwise, as crazy as their arguments may be. These people who would do so would likely be in the minority. I think that the whole point of eliminating bias is to protect minority views because they are unable to protect themselves. Based on this, I think that even crazy, minority-held views ought to be presented if one really wants to eliminate bias. However, it is not my argument that we should try to eliminate all bias and therefore we don't need to present all minority views.
I wasn't really talking about a minority view so much as an opposing view…especially an opposing view of a historian from another culture. Some may say dividing Africa into political states was a good thing, others may not. Both views could be correct if presented factually.I do think I made myself clear in that when something is wrong it's just wrong, so it can and should be dismissed.I was on another board that's mainly all the world religions. I introduced myself as an evangelical Christian with some questions on the Hindu faith. Some attacked me as an enemy with ulterior motives ("Evangelical Christians just don't seek knowledge, they only want to convert"). Luckily, some did answer the questions.
As I have alluded to before, I consider myself a Rankean historian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke By the way, how do I make a title show in place of the link so that I can make it read Leopold von Ranke instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke?I like to present history "wie es eigentlich gewesen" or as it actually happened. That does not mean endorsing the actions of any side but instead, presenting what happened happened and trying to explain why ,in the authors opinion, the actors did what they did. I would like to emphasize that it is not the responsibility of the historian to justify past acts, the historian simply tells a narrative account of what happened. The interpretation of history is the historians educated guess as to why things happened not whether they were right or wrong.A simple judgment call is not warranted by the historian, is that not the purview of the reader to make an individual judgment call as to the rightness or wrongness of the things that happened in the past? Right and wrong are the domain of philosophy, not history. That is the problem with much of modern historical scholarship, historians are so busy inflicting their moral wisdom on us that the average reader is left wondering what really happened. The story of the past is lost in a welter of moralizing and lecturing about how right or wrong Hitler etc. was.History is no more or less than a story. It is the art of telling the story of the past in a factual compelling manner that invites the reader to learn more about what happened so that they can form their own opinion. I don't know about everybody else, but I don't need some guy telling telling me the difference between right and wrong, I learned that from parents as a child.All the debate about bias in history confuses the issue. The issue is not bias, it is what are we doing in schools today that makes the average person incapable of making an independent moral judgment?
