by Prahok » Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:16 pm
doctordoom wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:36 pm
Prahok wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:30 am
Historians just record what happened.
The vast majority of historians do not just record what happened.
The hardest thing for any historian, even writing their own accounts soon after the event, and as a primary source, is not to let their (natural?)bias interfere with what they write. Most don't get it right.
And when people are in excited states, they see things differently, so what they thought they saw was in fact something slightly different. With time, alternative memory (the creation of new memories) steps in, and that just adds to the mix.
It is a challenge, particularly once history goes beyond record and relationships are assumed. Humans are not robots, so absolute objectivity in matter of social interaction is unattainable simply as observation itself involves a measure subjectivity. It is the challenge of historians to do their best to dampen these inherent internal biases. This is where peer agreement on positions plays a role, but that again is subject to societal trends.
When there is little attempt to address these internal biases then an individual is no longer a historian, they become advocates. They may hold the job title, they publish many a book, but they are engaged in advocacy. This is most of what you read on the shelves as it sells.
Distance in time from an event assists with dampening subjectivity, however often such time distances leave gaps in the record which cause their own issues.
[quote=doctordoom post_id=1042678 time=1643448978]
[quote=Prahok post_id=1042670 time=1643412613 user_id=31599] Historians just record what happened. [/quote]
The vast majority of historians do not just record what happened.
The hardest thing for any historian, even writing their own accounts soon after the event, and as a primary source, is not to let their (natural?)bias interfere with what they write. Most don't get it right.
And when people are in excited states, they see things differently, so what they thought they saw was in fact something slightly different. With time, alternative memory (the creation of new memories) steps in, and that just adds to the mix.
[/quote]
It is a challenge, particularly once history goes beyond record and relationships are assumed. Humans are not robots, so absolute objectivity in matter of social interaction is unattainable simply as observation itself involves a measure subjectivity. It is the challenge of historians to do their best to dampen these inherent internal biases. This is where peer agreement on positions plays a role, but that again is subject to societal trends.
When there is little attempt to address these internal biases then an individual is no longer a historian, they become advocates. They may hold the job title, they publish many a book, but they are engaged in advocacy. This is most of what you read on the shelves as it sells.
Distance in time from an event assists with dampening subjectivity, however often such time distances leave gaps in the record which cause their own issues.