CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If history is written by the victors, then how come we know so much about the injustices on the part of the victors? If history were written by the victors, we would know nothing about the injustices of the treatment of the Native Americans; we would know nothing about the American Labor Movement; we would know nothing about the internment of Japanese Americans; we would know nothing how insane Emperor Nero, or Caligula were. The fact is, history is fact. If it were not based on objective fact, we would know only of the story of the victors, and that would be it.
If history is written by the victors, then how come we know so much about the injustices on the part of the victors?
If one was to completely wipe out a civilization, how would know it ever existed. The victors stated that the injustice happened. History is not written by armies or governments but by individuals that live within the victors.
Well, that's half true. There are countless primary sources that exist from the "losers" in history, which is why we know about the injustice. If history were only written by the "victors," in the interest of the "victors," then the injustices would be spun in such a way that they were a "necessity" or "for their own good." The Romans, for example, had many historians, and scholars that were critical of the things the government, military, and emperors were doing. That's why we know things about Nero's madness, or Caligula's perversions. It is not 100% through the lens of the victors, or else we would only know a biased version of history, which we do not.
In Russia, I would argue that in much of its history, academic freedom has been repressed, and thus, in Russia, you often get a consensus history. Russia has been very authoritarian for most of its history for a variety of reasons that I would be glad to explain, if you would like. However, you are right, it wasn't because Russia was "communist," it was because Russia was Russia. The US has used consensus history and repressed academic freedom in the past too, but that is not an excuse to pretend that we should ignore the lessons of history, or stop researching it.
History is fact. It is a FACT that Shays' Rebellion took place. It is a FACT that the French Revolution happened. It is a FACT that the robber barons used violence to suppress labor movements. It is a FACT that the Native Tribes in North American were horribly shafted repeatedly. It is a FACT that the St. Patrick's Battalion defected and fought for Mexico during the Mexican-American War. It is a FACT that President Hoover ordered the army to use deadly force on the Bonus Army during the great depression.
The fact that I am mentioning these things, which do not support the present power structure, means history is MORE than simply the story of the victor. As a matter of fact, as the late great Historian, Dr. Howard Zinn would argue, "it is the duty of the historian to not side with the executioner." It is our job as historians to tell the whole story, so that everyone involved has their story told. There is nothing that I can think of in history that actually benefitted all parties and no one was short-changed somehow. If we did not know about things like Shays' Rebellion, or the Whiskey Rebellion, or the Pullman Strike, or the Hay market Square Massacre, or the horrible treatment of the First Nations of North America, I would agree with you, but that is not the case.
In Russia, I would argue that in much of its history, academic freedom has been repressed
Please provide any evidence, that it was repressed to a higher extent than in other European countries. And I'm not talking about the communist period here.
It is a FACT that the French Revolution happened.
Um...it's a "fact", however a lot of details about this "revolution" have been conveniently swept under the rug, even by European historians. We might never know the full truth now, but it's quite likely that this "revolution" had killed more innocent people than the Russian revolution, as a percentage of the country's population.
Regarding the other events you've mentioned...I am not qualified to argue since I don't know enough about them (they are not part of our history curriculum, just like many things about our history are not taught in your schools). With the exception of Native Tribes, but here I think our version of history might be slanted, whereas all colonists were "demons".
I never implied that all of history was made up. Maybe some of these facts are reflected accurately.
However, in respect to Russian history, there seem to be some "facts" which have been completely invented, like the "Tatar - Mongol" invasion. Here, I can provide conclusive evidence if you wish.
Please provide any evidence, that it was repressed to a higher extent than in other European countries. And I'm not talking about the communist period here.
I was, of course referring to the centuries under the autocratic Czarist system, which was very similar to Stalin's "communism" in many ways in terms of its top-down authoritarian approaches, and lack of academic (or any really) freedom. So, for evidence, please go read about the history of Russia in any book.One book I can suggest is, Russia and the Soviet Union: A Historical Introduction from the Kievan State to the Present by John M. Thompson. I've taken a few classes on Russian history because I am training to be a historian.
Um...it's a "fact", however a lot of details about this "revolution" have been conveniently swept under the rug, even by European historians. We might never know the full truth now, but it's quite likely that this "revolution" had killed more innocent people than the Russian revolution, as a percentage of the country's population.
If history did not record that, then how could you conjecture that without any evidence to go off of? I've been taught all about the Reign of Terror and the horrible things that happened during the French Revolution. I know about them, because HISTORY tells us about them.
Regarding the other events you've mentioned...I am not qualified to argue since I don't know enough about them (they are not part of our history curriculum, just like many things about our history are not taught in your schools).
Thank you for deferring, but those things were all taught to me in high school, before I ever set foot in a University as a history major, except for the Whiskey Rebellion. At the University, I've been taught about them more in-depth.
With the exception of Native Tribes, but here I think our version of history might be slanted, whereas all colonists were "demons".
That very statement is counter-intutitive to your argument which is, "history is written by the victors," basically. I would argue that the colonists were very cruel to the natives, and I think it would be very hard to disprove that unless you cherry-picked some primary sources.
I never implied that all of history was made up. Maybe some of these facts are reflected accurately.
Most of them are. You have no idea how much work researching history is, and that's what historians do. It's a lot of work, and no one spends that kind of time on something to make things up. Historians are experts in their field, and they are we have the sacred duty of being the stewards of the story of the events of the past in light of the evidence. The key here is evidence. Historians cannot make things up. There has to be historical evidence from primary sources. It's a science.
However, in respect to Russian history, there seem to be some "facts" which have been completely invented, like the "Tatar - Mongol" invasion. Here, I can provide conclusive evidence if you wish.
If you are trying to deny that the Mongols invaded Russia and demanded tribute for a few centuries, there is a lot of evidence that supports that as happening. What evidence do you have that disputes that the Golden Horde ever set foot in Russia, if that's what you're implying?
In closing, history is the study of the events of the past in light of the evidence. Historians cannot just make things up. Sometimes there are draconian measures that prevent historians from looking into certain things, or there might be some restrictions imposed on what they can teach or write about, but history, the discipline is all done with evidence in mind. You cannot write a peer-reviewed article based solely on conjecture and expect to be taken seriously. This is something I know a lot about because I am a history student myself, and will be starting grad school next year. I have done original research myself. History is not made-up, but I will concede to you that in some parts of the world, like Russia, like the US during the 1950s, and in the 19th century, when academic freedom was stymied. That is not a reason to stop researching, stop learning, and stop teaching about the lessons learned from the past. It is when we ignore history, that the powerful are allowed to do the same things to us. The people of the world must have a memory so, as British rock band, The Who, would tell us, "we don't get fooled again."
If you want to read a really good book about US History that tells the whole story, and not the "we're awesome go USA" version, read Dr. Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States. It is very well-writen, obviously, because he's a historian (and historians must be good writers to be sure), but he doesn't come across as a stuffy, pipe-smoking historian. Everything is very easy to read, and he backs everything up with historical primary sources.
The accounts of the past varies depending on where it is found and who is telling it. I've argued with people from Great Britain about the USA's involvement in WWII and their account is different from people in the USA. Most Britain citizen claim that they could have handled Germany without any help from the USA. The story as told by the USA deems the USA as coming to Britain's rescue while they just sat back and let Germany bomb them. Which account is fact? Which account is fiction?
There is a difference between folk history, and history as told by professional historians.
A professional historian will give you the factual, objective true story because the professional historian is supposed to ignore personal bias and stick to objective facts based on evidence.
With folk history, or consenus history, people like to choose a story that better benefits their people. A lot of Americans believe a very hyperbolic version of their history that portrays them as "badasses," but in truth, American history, based on facts and evidence, tells a very different story, and injustice is very deeply woven in American history. However, many Americans ignore the bad parts of their own history (or simply have not been taught it because our education system, since austerity, has left much to be desired), because the bad parts are uncomfortable to confront.
The bottom line is, there aren't different stories to history. There is only one objective truth, as is the case with any other science. Therefore, to answer your question, the account that is based on falsehoods, or not based on facts and primary sources, is fiction, and the account based on facts and primary sources is fact. The kind of history researched, and written about by trained historians is fact.
There are not different versions of reality for different "sides." I tell this to politically polarized people all the time. History is no different. ONE thing happened, and that's it. So, the facts that support the actual truth (there are no positions with truth, only truth) tells us the actual account about Britain. It's easy: if it's true, it's true. Sometimes (most of the time, in my experience), the truth does not support either side. If you get two "sides" to come together and objectively review evidence, both "sides" should leave the room angry most of the time.
There are not different versions of reality for different "sides." I tell this to politically polarized people all the time. History is no different. ONE thing happened, and that's it. So, the facts that support the actual truth (there are no positions with truth, only truth) tells us the actual account about Britain. It's easy: if it's true, it's true. Sometimes (most of the time, in my experience), the truth does not support either side. If you get two "sides" to come together and objectively review evidence, both "sides" should leave the room angry most of the time.
Reality is subject to the individual, one person's reality is not the same as another person. If I jump on a hand grenade, am I a dead hero or a dead fool. What is the truth in both cases I am dead? How history takes this into account may or may not make a hero out of me.
Reality is reality. The sky is blue for everyone. The grass is green for everyone. The law of gravity affects everyone. If something happens, it happens. There is no denying that the French Revolution happened. There were no people in France at the time that could deny (and have any credibility) that nothing was happening in France at that time in history.
So, in your example, a guy jumps on a grenade, and dies as a result. How could anyone deny that? It does not matter if he was a fool or not, he is still dead, and he still jumped on the grenade.
An honest historian, without any other information, only has the secondary source from you that someone jumped on a grenade. It is not the job of the historian to make a hero out of that person. People later (not historians) might make a hero out of you, but they are not historians, they are likely politicians or pundits.
Like I've said before in this debate: there is a difference between history and folk history.
Thomas Jefferson is a great example of this. People often revere him as an enlightened hero. Historians, on the other hand, who read his writings, memoirs, and look at the primary sources from his estate, simply say, "Thomas Jefferson was." Thomas Jefferson said some very cool things, and he said some very racist, elitist things. He was human. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, but also wrote about "breeding negroes" because it was lucrative to do so.
So, while Glen Beck might say he was a "great revolutionary," Glen Beck is not a historian, and clearly does not understand the complexity of people in history.
What color was the sky during those events that happened at night?
Exactly, the color of the sky is still the same for everyone there.
During a drought the grass is not green, but brown.
Exactly, but it is still brown for everyone, not just certain people. Dry grass is one color, factually.
Gravity does not affect one that is in space.
Actually, it does. When you're in earth's orbit, you're influenced by Earth's gravity. Gravity is always acting on things in space. That's why planets orbit around stars, and do not just travel around space aimlessly (excluding rouge planets). So, gravity is definitely real.
People have never been honest, honesty is a myth. Since historians are people.....See the problem?
I disagree. I try as hard as I can to be honest. Lots of people are honest. Honesty is one's ability to tell the objective truth. Every time you say something that is true, you're being honest. The job of a historian is to tell the truth. See the problem?
Exactly. Most history, the vast majority of history, as long as it's done by actual historians, is legitimately researched and often peer-reviewed. It's like the difference between science and pseudoscience. The aquatic ape hypothesis is not real science, but gravity is real. I love history, and I love doing the research, but that's why I'm making a living of it.
Most history was written prior to the development of the peer-review process. Most history was also written prior to the advent of accessible mass-media (e.g. printing press, internet, etc.) that has enabled disempowered groups to contest mainstream history.
History also does not exist as a singular entity; there is no such thing as an history of anything. We do not always have access to all the facts, and even if we do there may not be any singular interpretation of them. Why should a recounting of the actions of a subjective species by its own members be anything but at least partially subjective itself? The social function of history is largely in the management of social and political narrative; it is a tool of power. Those persons who pursue it for its own sake are in a minority.
As someone going through formal training to be a historian, I can confidently say that history is fact, as long as the research is done honestly and objectively. The research is a lot of work, and it is all based on primary historical sources. Because the discipline of history surrounds evidence and facts, it is very difficult to say history is anything but fact.
As someone going through formal training as a historian, I question your neutrality. You seem unduly attached to the notion of your medium as infallible, which in your profession strikes me as improper if not actually dangerous.
I have never read a single historical account of anything that was exclusively a strict representation of all facts, if for no other reason than that historians are themselves human and thus inherently fallible. There is no scientific method proxy within the profession, and it is worthy of note that even in hard science where such a method exists there proliferates a not inconsequential body of research that is fallible. To assert that history is entirely factual is to deny the innate subjectivity of the field, as well as any biases you are trained into both within and external to the field itself. You are willfully ignoring both the intentional and unintentional distortions that occur within history, by yourself and by others.
Your argument seems to be that anything that is not strictly factual is not actually history. Not only would this rule out the vast majority (if not all) of historical accounting as history, but it is just as fallible an argument as that made by Muslims who claim Muslim extremists are not also Mulsims (or Christians who claim the same, etc.).
As someone going through formal training as a historian, I question your neutrality. You seem unduly attached to the notion of your medium as infallible, which in your profession strikes me as improper if not actually dangerous.
So, in your opinion, I should pretend facts are not facts because believing evidence is dangerous? History is based on facts and evidence. Historians cannot arbitrarily make things up. So, as someone who is NOT training as a historian, I question your objective knowledge about what historians do. It is like someone who has no background in science telling scientists they know more about what the scientists do than the scientist themselves.
I have never said that history is infallible because there have been times that academic freedom has been stymied by the powerful to prevent the truth from being divulged, but that is not the fault of the historian. History is a weapon to use to question authority.
I have never read a single historical account of anything that was exclusively a strict representation of all facts.
Then you haven't read a scholarly history journal before.
To assert that history is entirely factual is to deny the innate subjectivity of the field, as well as any biases you are trained into both within and external to the field itself.
To deny that history is based on facts, is to assert that historians make things up implicitly. I can tell you, no historian will get very far by making things up arbitrarily. Historians are experts about the events of the past in light of the evidence, and what they research and write about is typically reviewed by other history experts to ensure facts are used.
There is no scientific method proxy within the profession, and it is worthy of note that even in hard science where such a method exists there proliferates a not inconsequential body of research that is fallible.
That is because what you call "hard science" is studied in a different way. History is merely reporting facts about the past using evidence, and that's it. There is no hypothesizing, or testing in history. You are merely reporting the facts, like a journalist. As we all know a good journalist, a respectable journalist, does not "spin" stories, or lie.
To assert that history is entirely factual is to deny the innate subjectivity of the field, as well as any biases you are trained into both within and external to the field itself.
Facts are not subjective, and I am not sure what "biases" you are referring to. I am the one who has the formal training in the discipline here, and I've never been trained to have a bias. Rather, I've been trained to ignore my own personal feelings when I do my research and writing. Then again, like you said, because I actually have training in the discipline, you might know more about what I do that I do.
You are willfully ignoring both the intentional and unintentional distortions that occur within history, by yourself and by others.
Intentional distortions are not honest history. Unintentional distortions are evidence of a lack of discipline on the part of the historian. A good historian eliminates bias, and sticks to the facts. If you read a peer-reviewed article or journal written by a reputable historian, you will see almost no bias, but I am warning you, it will not be very exciting because it is not written to get a reaction from you. Good historical writing is very dry and "boring" to most people.
Your argument seems to be that anything that is not strictly factual is not actually history.
You are right. History is based on facts in light of evidence. History is not fiction. History is not made up.
Not only would this rule out the vast majority (if not all) of historical accounting as history,
No, it would only rule out Glen Beck (who has no training in the field) as a historian and others like him.
but it is just as fallible an argument as that made by Muslims who claim Muslim extremists are not also Mulsims (or Christians who claim the same, etc.).
The difference is enormous. Religion is not based on objective facts and evidence. Religion is subjective.
I am afraid that you seem to not really know what goes into historical research. Every claim a respected historian makes, must be backed up with evidence from primary historical sources, and those primary historical sources are facts from the past. A historian cannot just make things up to support an agenda (as you seem to be claiming). As a historian, depending on your specialty, you have to learn to read and write (at least) many different languages for the purpose of reading primary sources. You cannot even trust other people's interpretation of the language. All of it must be read by you, and you must understand the culture of the past so that you can pick up the slang, or subtle nuances in the language.
What I find strange about this debate, is that I actually know what I do, and you are telling me what I do, yet you are not doing what I do. It would be like someone with no training as a car mechanic, telling a car mechanic how they rebuild a transmission. In what other context would someone feel entitled to tell someone else how they do their job besides a discipline like history that can be used to question authority when authority tries to fool us. History is a list of lessons that we should learn from. Trying to make a case AGAINST history, implicitly is a case for remaining ignorant about the lessons of the past; no one benefits more from what you are saying than the powerful. So, I must respectfully, with my knowledge of what I do in archives, libraries, and government documents, disagree.
So, in your opinion, I should pretend facts are not facts because believing evidence is dangerous?
No. I never said anything remotely approximating that.
History is based on facts and evidence
Observe your own language choice. The very way you talk admits to the fact that history is not just facts and evidence, but a narrative based upon facts and evidence.
So, as someone who is NOT training as a historian, I question your objective knowledge about what historians do.
How do you know what I am or am not trained/training as?
It is like someone who has no background in science telling scientists they know more about what the scientists do than the scientist themselves.
No. It is like someone who is not a scientist observing that the scientific method does not entirely remove human error. You do not have to understand molecular biology to reach that conclusion. Similarly, one does not have to be an historian to understand that the humans behind it are fallible at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
I have never said that history is infallible because there have been times that academic freedom has been stymied by the powerful to prevent the truth from being divulged, but that is not the fault of the historian. History is a weapon to use to question authority.
History is not just oppressed by the powerful, it is utilized and twisted by the powerful. History has far more often favored those already in power than those without it.
Then you haven't read a scholarly history journal before.
Actually, I have. Multiple times. Apparently with a far more critical eye than you ever have.
To deny that history is based on facts, is to assert that historians make things up implicitly. I can tell you, no historian will get very far by making things up arbitrarily. Historians are experts about the events of the past in light of the evidence, and what they research and write about is typically reviewed by other history experts to ensure facts are used.
I have never once denied that history is based upon facts, at least in some instances. My point is that within the field of history there is innately some form of narrative utilizing those facts to advance itself. This may be overtly intentional or entirely subconscious, but the simple reality exists nonetheless that humans bring their own biases to whatever they practice.
I also have and will again reiterate that some historians have and still do fabricate facts or extrapolate conclusions beyond what the facts actually demonstrate. Their relative success is entirely irrelevant to the reality of their existence.
As for peer review, the process is hardly infallible. For starters, peer review processes typically occur within language/cultural groups (e.g. American journals peer reviewing American historians, etc.). Further, peer review is not a necessary requirement for publishing in all mediums (only in peer reviewed journals, which most people do not read).
That is because what you call "hard science" is studied in a different way.
Yes, that was rather my point.
History is merely reporting facts about the past using evidence, and that's it.
So you continue to assert.
There is no hypothesizing, or testing in history.
No. There are political narrative, power dynamics, personal privilege, and cultural bias. Among other issues. None of which you have remotely begun to address.
You are merely reporting the facts, like a journalist. As we all know a good journalist, a respectable journalist, does not "spin" stories, or lie.
Because we all know how reliable journalism has always been. Probably not your best analogy.
Whether the historian is "respectable" or not is, again, entirely irrelevant to the fact of their existence.
The difference is enormous. Religion is not based on objective facts and evidence. Religion is subjective.
You missed my point entirely. I was not saying religion and history are comparable fields. I was pointing out that when you assert that historians who do not strictly use facts alone are not really historians, you are committing the same logical fallacy as those who claim certain types of Muslims/Christians/whatever are not actually Muslims/Christians/whatever. It is not only a fallacy of reasoning, it is a dangerous form of denial about the fallibility of your own profession.
I am afraid that you seem to not really know what goes into historical research.
I am afraid you seem to be leaping to conclusions again. I have, in fact, studied history in an academic setting. My education taught me the very subjectivity of the field, because for all that it is generally based in facts those same facts are inherently filtered through the lens of whomever is studying them. We attach our own experiences, perspectives, and narratives to what we research. You can know a dozen languages, read every primary source available, have your work peer reviewed... and you will still be fundamentally human.
What I find strange about this debate, is that I actually know what I do, and you are telling me what I do, yet you are not doing what I do. [...]
I am not telling you what you do. I am telling you that you and every other historian are human beings, and that you thus inherently bring your views to your work. Peer review might mitigate this to some extent, but I have given express rationale as to why this and other checks you've mentioned can't make history an infallible practice.
I am not telling you how to do your job. By all means, keeping mitigating your human fallibility as much as you can. But it is an exercise in hubris to presume yourself inhumanly infallible, and a dangerous error in judgement to project that hubris onto your field in its entirety.
I am not making a case against history. I understand its importance. I am cautioning against enshrining it as a perfect practice, impervious to fallibility. The moment we do that, we have failed to learn from history itself.
Observe your own language choice. The very way you talk admits to the fact that history is not just facts and evidence, but a narrative based upon facts and evidence.
I don't understand what your point is. So, you think that history is less credible because it is based on facts? History is fact. It is not a "narrative" which would imply that it is made-up. Of course, history is based on facts. The discipline revolves around facts. Without facts, you do not have history. You're going to have to accept that I know more about what I do than you do.
How do you know what I am or am not trained/training as?
Because you evidently do not understand what historians do, or what the discipline is, based on your argument which seems to be "history is 100% subjective and made-up (and thus we should ignore its lessons)."
No. It is like someone who is not a scientist observing that the scientific method does not entirely remove human error. You do not have to understand molecular biology to reach that conclusion. Similarly, one does not have to be an historian to understand that the humans behind it are fallible at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
Historians that are misleading are not respected in the discipline. There are "scientists" that deny the effects of Carbon Monoxide on our global climate too, but that does not prove science is false.
History is not just oppressed by the powerful, it is utilized and twisted by the powerful. History has far more often favored those already in power than those without it.
That's funny because I spend a lot of time researching people who were oppressed.
Actually, I have. Multiple times. Apparently with a far more critical eye than you ever have.
That's an ad hominem attack. Thank you. Evidently, you didn't bother noticing that the peer-reviewed articles are peer-reviewed.
My point is that within the field of history there is innately some form of narrative utilizing those facts to advance itself. This may be overtly intentional or entirely subconscious, but the simple reality exists nonetheless that humans bring their own biases to whatever they practice.
In your untrained opinion.
I also have and will again reiterate that some historians have and still do fabricate facts or extrapolate conclusions beyond what the facts actually demonstrate. Their relative success is entirely irrelevant to the reality of their existence.
Not respected ones.
Yes, that was rather my point.
Aren't "hard sciences" also "based on facts?"
No. There are political narrative, power dynamics, personal privilege, and cultural bias. Among other issues. None of which you have remotely begun to address.
Because to someone who knows what they are doing and is well respected in the field, none of this matters. You don't write history to prove a point, you write history to tell the facts. Look at how "culturally biased" Howard Zinn was.
Because we all know how reliable journalism has always been. Probably not your best analogy.
Journalism strives (by respected journalists) to be objective and stick to facts. Yellow journalism is not respected.
I'd love to finish this, but I have to get to a class, where I'm going to, in your opinion, waste my time becoming more ignorant by learning more facts. I'll be back later.
As someone going through formal training to be a historian,...
“The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on -- because they're dysfunctional to the institutions.”
No disrespect to Mr. Chomsky, who I often agree with but... You just made a case for widespread ignorance and denying the lessons of history for political reasons. The reason you get an education is to have a tool to question. The powerful do not like educated people because educated people know better, and are harder to fool. The greatest safeguard against tyranny is education.
That quote is not an argument against education or for widespread ignorance. It is an argument against ivory tower academia, which remains largely inaccessible and irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of persons. Certainly, an educated person is a check against tyranny and it follows that an educated populace functions similarly. However, being trained in academia is not necessarily synonymous with being educated. The education system itself is a form of indoctrination into whatever perspectives the institution adopts and spreads to its students (e.g. the myth you seem to have been taught that historians are infallible and that history has no narrative).
You just insulted me personally, and what I do for a living. Thank you. Don't bother listening to me when I talk about what I have formal training in then because you clearly know better than they guy who has spent his life both in and out of school studying history.
So, in your opinion, does having stepped foot into a university, about to start grad school, done primary research, spent years listening to experts, and spending 10 years before I set foot in a classroom studying history as an autodidact mean that I know LESS than you about it?
Or, let me put it another way. If you don't trust anyone who has devoted their lives to the study of history to know about history, who do you think is more qualified to talk about it?
Do you also feel this way about plumbers, scientists, lawyers, doctors, car mechanics, and carpenters? All of these professions require schooling and devotion to a trade as well. Does that also make them just as knowledgeable about their trade as you?
I apologize to both thewayitis and Jace for my hostile defense of my livelihood. I really believe in searching for the objective truth, and it bothers me when people insinuate that I am stupid and wasting my time by devoting my life to objective truth, and bettering the world by proliferating that objective truth. I take a great deal of pride in what I do, and really feel that studying history is a good way to learn about the mistakes and injustices of the past (or at least what happened), so that we do not make the same mistakes/injustices again, and the powerful do not fool us again, but I realize not everyone agrees with that.
I've been faced with this argument before. Frankly it was made with a lot less logic from people with a lot less education (I presume you have both probably both set foot in a community college classroom at least, although you are both probably not history majors, or we wouldn't be having this conversation because you'd know). Both of you clearly have devoted some thought to what you believe and while I wholeheartedly disagree (based on my knowledge of what I do, and how the discipline works), I respect that you both are at least bothering to think, which cannot be said for many people these days.
I can assure both of you that the way I have been trained to research, and write is based on facts from primary sources and some secondary sources. Every claim must be cited, and inflammatory rhetoric is not supposed to be used.
As I've said to one of you (I cannot remember who), even "hard science" is based on facts, and data is interpreted. So, if the argument is that interpretation of facts makes a study less credible (for example, the greenhouse effect is an interpretation of data, which proves that CO2 makes a planet hotter, put simply), then I guess you both will just reject the knowledge of experts regardless of what facts and evidence are used, and I cannot help you understand.
I recognize why you are defensive. I also understand that you have had bad experiences with people attacking you and your profession with little to no foundation. However, I think those previous experiences have kept you from understanding what I am actually trying to convey. Let me attempt to re-explain with greater clarity.
I appreciate that you seek objectivity, and that you strive to avoid unfounded rhetoric. I mean that, genuinely. My point has never been that you do not, nor that you have been trained in any other fashion. My point is that no matter how much you or anyone else tries, pure objectivity is not humanly possible. I do, in fact, extend this rationale to other professions (including "hard science"). I do not think that this renders your profession or any other pointless, and I certainly do not reject conclusions reached by those professions on that basis alone (I evaluate all information in terms of probability, factoring the extent of objectivity among other variables). What it does mean is that I take everything with a dose of skepticism, and with a ready acknowledgement that regardless of intention the results are necessarily imperfect.
My point was only that you seemed unwilling to acknowledge what I consider an innate human attribute: our inability to be purely objective, and our even lesser capacity for communicating what objective understanding we do develop. I also wanted to drive home that not everyone in your profession (or any other profession) pursues objectivity, and that history has its own history of malpractice; I brought that up because, again, it seemed to be something you were not acknowledging (not because I thought you yourself lacked integrity towards pursuit of the objective). Both of these points seemed significant to me, because they are the basis from which skepticism can stand... and that skepticism, in turn, is what keeps any profession in check.
I hope that clarifies. Please let me know if it does not.
I apologize to both thewayitis and Jace for my hostile defense of my livelihood.
No need to apologize. I'd like to point out that if one believes in an organization as much as you do, one has a hard time seeing the faults within. Saints don't claim to be saints.
All colleges, institutions, universities, businesses, etc. have orientation.
1a: the act or process of orienting or of being oriented
b: the state of being oriented; broadly: arrangement, alignment
2a: a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest
From birth one is being oriented.
In response back to the comment about trades (mechanics, plumbers, etc.) I do not like the training process that they under-go. Schools train people to take test. The only good source of knowledge is experience. Information is not knowledge.
