These concepts confuse me:
Simon describes how Texas is battling over emphasizing the role of the Bible in American History. To me it is not the Christianity in textbooks that is bothersome, it is the fact that some people believe they have the right to control certain, if not not all aspects of other people's lives. To me it had nothing to do with politics or religion, just changing history in general bothers me may it be a small change or a tiny slant. I feel robbed. I've been confused about this History thing. How should a history book be written? But how DO you write a history book objectively? I stumbled upon this quote: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."- Napoleon Bonaparte
Again this added to my confusion. History should be completely objective. But we all know that is impossible. So to even have history we must agree and the majority must decide on what is relevant, what truly happened, and who came out victorious. There are too much many cultures represented in today's society to even come close to some sort of agreement. Still my heart tells me, history should be objective, it is unfair to to change events so a certain group gets more recognition, or comes out the "good guys." How I have interpreted 1984 (subject to change): 2+2=5 is wrong. Winston ends the novel by writing 2+2=5 in the dust on the table. This move is symbolic of the Party's power to control the majority. "What knowledge do have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in ALL minds truly happens." Right now I'm arguing the 1984 defines reality/history as a majority vote, just as Napoleon did. Is 1984 society wrong for believing 2+2=5? Its what the majority believes, you die if you don't believe it. The most confusing part is that, to me, the History problem is impossible and the majority should rule. 1984 seems to argue that 2+2=5 if everyone believes it is so.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is history should be objective, but that's impossible. But how do we make history as objective as possible? In 1984 society history is defined purely as majority, however, we don't live in a Totalitarian regime. There are too many aspects to our culture to come close to agreeing upon anything. In trying to answer the question how do we write history objectively I've pretty much decided that you can't. Writing history that will bests serve the education and future of the populous as a whole that a majority decides upon just seems logical. Obviously we aren't 1984 hypothetical London and I'm definitely not saying the Party is correct, I'm just saying the book argues a majority rule concept and maybe that is what Orwell tried to show. Maybe society can't handle too much information. But why beat a dead horse?
I agree with you completely.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could just post that, since it adaquitely sums up my feelings, but I suppose I have to come up with 150 words to back it up. *sigh* Okay:
Your views mirror almost exactly the stance I took on this topic in my blog. Basically, to me this topic of "history done right" seems so, well, hopeless! Everyone has baises, even (or perhaps especially) the historians deciding on what's relevant and what's not. After all, who knows how many of those historians went to the same colleges to be taught by the same teachers with the same ideas. And let's face it, it's human nature to emulate the "winner." We can't go back and experience history for ourselves as it really happened and, knowing us humans, even if we could we would still come to separate conclusions on what really happened. And you know what, I'm not convinced that all except one of those conclusions would be incorrect. The Butterfly Effect, 6 Degrees of Separation, call me crazy but think there's something to these everything-is-connected theories. (WARNING: major digression) In my personal opinion, schools should place a bigger emphasis on learning to think, research, and, er, learn for oneself. As the world seems to have made a hobby of creating new shades of gray, it's becoming increasingly important that we as young people learn how to think for ourselves. But even what THAT means could be debated. Wow, I hate postmodernism...
So yeah, history can never be solved. *nod* Now what am I going to do with this dead horse?
Great point Katie! I think history should be taught as objectively as possible, but it seems almost impossible to do that. We can try our best to make everyone happy, but no one ever will be. So instead people take sides, and nothing is ever remotely agreed upon. It's annoying to the point where you almost want to give up and say who the heck cares what's in the books, just write it! But like you said, in your heart you just can't do that. You can't let history be written over and over again until we feel it is "good enough". There is no good enough! History is history. Whether it was good or bad that doesn't change the fact that it happened. But like you said, there is too much and too many sides to be objective about. And like Orwell demonstrates, and you pointed out, maybe we shouldn't know all the facts. Ignorance is bliss, right?... It's definitely something to think about :)
ReplyDelete