Contrary to a popular belief—one especially among historians and theorists—the lack of objectivity in history books and school textbooks is not hugely problematic. The reason for the previous claim is that, simply, when it comes to historical occurrences, bias and inclinations of perspectives—though can hypothetically be eliminated—are totally inevitable.
Historians are human beings, with brains to know, comprehend, and evaluate historical events and consciousnesses to feel and sense the underlying meanings of those events. Similarly, history itself deals with other human beings who had brains to know, comprehend, and evaluate then-occurring events and consciousness to feel and sense the underlying meanings of those events. Therefore, the intermutual relationship between the historian or history writer and his/her historical facts is primarily—however not solely—based on the human way of perceiving things. And it is unquestionably known that a human always perceives things through his own eyes. In other words, any normal person can’t help being somewhat subjective. A historian is a person; therefore, he can never be completely and wholesomely objective when dealing with his historical facts. To elaborate more clearly, think about a history college student writing an essay about the American Revolutionary War. The college student might, for example, research primary and secondary sources from the American section in a library. One could argue that the essay will come out a hundred percent objective since the student who wrote it did not alter any facts nor invented a new reality to the Revolutionary War. Nonetheless, the material of the essay will still hold a subjective character to it; the American historian, who wrote the books that the student used to help him or her writing the essay, viewed the circumstances and episodes of the war only through his own sense and perspectives thus had a subjective viewpoint. Yet, there are other sources, which the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document