Tuesday, March 28, 2017

History Questions

Please respond to at least 2 of the following questions.

1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

4. To what extent is the very nature of this Area of Knowledge affected by being about the past? In what ways do other Areas of Knowledge also concern themselves with the past? Is all knowledge, in a sense, historical knowledge?

39 comments:

  1. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?
    The development and advancement of technology has led to better and more effective methods of gaining historical evidence. It has been quicker and more precise in determining if a piece of evidence is accurate or not, and where that evidence originates from. Therefore, it has made the study of history to be more accurate and clear. Due to the increasing amounts of evidence, certain areas of history are open to more new and different interpretations. In addition, the methods of gaining evidence are quicker, and more efficient and precise. The advancement of technology has definitely allowed for us to observe the past more directly. For example, new equipment to excavate burial grounds can help classify physical pieces of evidence and help link it to other evidence we were unclear about.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    The primary role of a historian should be to record history and incorporate their own interpretations about the area of history they are studying. Although a historian should be as objective and factual as possible when recording history, it is impossible for a historian to be free of bias. The historian will surely have an opinion or their own interpretation of things, but they should keep it to themselves when they are recording facts of the historical event. However, the personal understandings of historians are just as valuable if they were personally involved or experienced the event. Their interpretations and personal understandings can increase the validity and the amount of factual information we have about history. The power of persuasion is definitely a characteristic of a good historian. It is clever for a historian to persuade his or her readers to hold the same bias as they do, even though they are only presenting facts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2. With technology, it has become easier to analyze the historical data presented and draw reasonable conclusions. For example, in terms of archaeology, technology has allowed for a deeper understanding of the past. Without technology, we would have no way of knowing about Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs or have been able to detect where historical artifacts were buried. Technology has allowed for greater collaboration and efficiency within historical studies. However, while technology allows for historical discoveries, it cannot truly change historical interpretation and we cannot view the past more directly. Even with complete, accurate historical data and the means of communication, varying historical interpretations are still prevalent. Historians can still interpret data in disparate ways, leading to argument and disagreement. Therefore we cannot ultimately not view the past more directly.

    3. History is a highly subjective area of knowledge and therefore historians have a key role in creating history. Because we cannot travel to the past, we rely on historians to interpret historical data in order to provide us with a seamless narrative of historical events. Because we do not truly know what happened in the past definitively, it can be argued that historians are the ones creating history. We rely on interpretation within history. Without it, there would be blank holes within our perception. For this reason, historians must be biased. They must use their knowledge and beliefs to fill in the gaps of the past. In order for a historical interpretation to be widely accepted as fact, the interpretation must be persuasive. For this reason, persuasion is an important quality in a historian. However, a historian's interpretations and persuasions must be rooted in fact because historians have a moral and ethical obligation to truthfully recount events and only use their bias in a logical manner.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. Yes, people can speak meaningfully of a historical fact - but only from how they interpret the information. Of course, this would not be purely factual, but would be based on fact. This is mostly the case when people interpret historical fact and base meaning or a personal truth off of actual events. For instance, the concept of “learning from mistakes” from history. This isn’t always successfully done, but is certainly possible. The only way people can speak with certainty about anything from the past is to accept that some small details and possibly even large details will be untrue. In essence, the only way a person can speak with certainty about the past is to accept that what they are saying is in some ways uncertain. Each historical event is interpreted in an infinite amount of ways from an infinite amount of people. Even what seems like historical fact is still subject to changes over time due to human error and common desire to alter and dramaticize stories.

    2. Technology has made the study of history much more accessible to many. Instead of relying on textbooks for historical facts, they can check their facts online, or look up events to obtain clarification on a topic they might otherwise be confused about. This benefits many, as people can much more easily gain (mostly) true and reliable knowledge. In the least, this level of accessibility combats most incorrect interpretations of history. In some ways, this allows us to observe the past more directly, but in the same fashion, also creates many new ways in which history is viewed indirectly and falsely. Many people may interpret history a more “correct” way, until they come across another interpretation online that seems plausible to them. As a result, their perception of that event is questioned, confused, or altered. The pure abundance of factually incorrect or satirical sources increases the chance that a person will learn about an event incorrectly. That being said, the ratio of ridiculously incorrect sources to mostly correct sources seems insufficient.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    I'd like to start with a rhetorical question/ observation: Will Trump’s Tweets be put in history books? Will we even have history books? It seems now children are getting more and more dependable on electronic devices rather than books. History students search on Google rather than an appendix, and websites such as JSTOR provide invaluable research tools necessary for a history class. We have the largest and most powerful storage device ever conceived in the form of the internet. Events and people aren't recorded in books and passed down generation to generation. Websites like YouTube help visualize the horrors of the holocaust or the hilarity of Charlie Chaplin all in the comfort of home. The past seems more accessible than ever, and has potential to grow even more.


    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

    The historian’s job is to not create nor record but to revive and fill. The historian must bring life to history, give it meaning to a generation that hasn't lived it- why is it important and what has it done to affect me? While it is the golden goal of historians, it is extremely hard to be unbiased in any way. Bias will always be in the way, it is human nature, which is essential to the recording of history. Both sides of an argument are important in trying to get the “full picture” of any historical event. The power of persuasion is important, however it is up to the student to interpret other possible sides to the argument, as even though your mind may be made up, a good argument on the other side could change that pretty quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?
    The internet is a great help for someone who is interested in studying history. You can easily search online , the information is at your fingertip. Having technology allows us to add and share information with each other which allows for different perspectives on a subject of matter. The addition of technology to the study of history improved the way we gain new information. Many technological tools also help historians discover things quickly. For example, scientists used to unwrap mummies to find out what the mummified body looked like. Now, they use the technology of CT scans and other x-ray devices to look through the wrappings without removing the wrappings. Natural science and math are contributors on the advance of technology which allowed for discovery of a lot of history. Using technology the past is more direct, which will allow us to dig up the past and discover new things.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    The job of historians is to record history and share it with the world. Historians don't create history, they use evidence and documents to interpret and reach a honest conclusion. Everyone is bias in one way or another, so are historians. They interpret things with the influence of their feelings and opinions. Not all historians act as primary sources, due to not being in that specific event, so they tend to include bias information. A good history should not include bias opinion. The power of persuasion is not that important in a historian, because often their persuasion can include bias views and opinions. Historians should simply record events how they happened and leave it for the public to interpret it in their own ways.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian? The role of a historian is to record historical events to the fullest extent, while trying to be not totally biased and by pushing their social position to the side. Ultimately, the historian records the history while observing it. The historian can be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material, but it is extremely hard to do. I believe some biases are important in history and give a better feel of the situation or event, whereas some biases can completely distort historical events or even leave out important ideas and facts. Lastly, power of persuasion is a characteristic of a good historian, because it lets him or her to get readers to believe in what they do.
    2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communication historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?
    The development of technology has greatly affected the study of history. Not only has it sped up numerous processes of exploring historical events and finding out crucial details, but it has also given everyone the access to details of any historical events at any moment. With this development of technology. Also, it opens up new pathways to discovering more history. Ultimately, we can now observe the past more directly with the technology we have today.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?
    Historical observations and research has been greatly affected by technology. Not only does technology allow historians to delve deeper into their area of study, but allows the sharing of historical events to be extremely cross cultural. Historians can easily contact fellow researchers across the globe to further their understanding of an event and share knowledge and ideas with one another. The barrier of language and continental location is less of a feat as technology allows us to combat the cultural differences of historians. Additionally with the use of technology historians can connect different events on a timeline and accurately determine when events occurred. How old an artifact is relative to other events and its uses, allow history to be more accurate.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    A historian's role is to analyze and question the events of our past. Historians not only record history but analyze and create ideas regarding why events happened and theorize how they will and have affected our current world. Historians, may be the most flawed in terms of historical selection as the act of selective interpretation is biased, rather than analyzing the entirety of an event. However being selective is necessary in terms of historical understanding and bias can further our understanding of the past and how we feel about events today. A historian, permitted they show duality, must indicate both sides of any event they are analyzing in order to be a good analyst. The power of persuasion is not a valuable characteristic, as a reader of history should formulate ideologies from the information given, but from a historian's opinion or bias.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
    Although a large part of studying history is interpretation, there are still concrete pieces of evidence to support and grant significance to these interpretations. Artifacts from the past such as letters, financial records, newspaper articles, art, clothing, weapons, or tools provide evidence of characteristics of a historical time period. Thus, though historians must fill in the gaps of information with interpretations, valid interpretations require evidence to give them value. Furthermore, the controversy between historical interpretations grants them meaning as well, as they provide a more balanced perspective by representing different points of view. For example, the Orthodox, Revisionist, and Post-Revisionist views of the origins of the Cold War conflict with each other, yet provide the individual with more information that allows for original interpretation.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    The role of the historian is to compile evidence and prove an interpretation of the historical event or period. Thus, the historian's role is to both record, and create a logical understanding, of history. However, the historian can never be truly free of bias. While some historians are more objective than others, none are free from personal experiences, cultural influence, ethnocentrism, and a myriad of other factors. Despite the lack of complete objectivity, the bias in the historian's interpretation is valuable when compared to the interpretations of other historians with differing biases. This is because compiling and comparing each perspective gives more understanding and balance to the individual's interpretation. The power of persuasion is not a characteristic of a good historian because the historian's goal should be to present history in the most truthful way possible. Although the idea of the truth may vary between historians, their purpose should not be to accumulate followers, but to provide valid knowledge of history as an area of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
    There is s degree of certainty with historical fact, but it is difficult to study history without bias. In the recording of even facts, there is an inherent bias. In order to try and combat that bias or at least provide a view that presents many different biases and the merits of each of them, it is very important to use a variety of types of sources. There must be not only secondary sources, as is the most common to find in history textbooks, but also primary and tertiary sources. In addition to that, one must use sources from a variety of backgrounds. For instance, if doing a history of the Southern US during Reconstruction, one would want to use sources from both black people and white people since race was such a prominent issue then. In order to try and show both sides of that story, one must attempt to show the experience of everyone affected by the time, not just focus on the plight of African Americans. The study of historiography is useful for examining the ways that the biases of the time period greatly impact the way that they present their historical views.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    The historian plays an interesting role because they are not only documenting history, but also creating it themselves. In fact, there is a whole branch of history called historiography which studies the different interpretations of different time periods and how they have changed over time. This can get pretty meta, but it also allows students and other scholars to analyze the value of each source they are presented with. For instance, when looking at textbooks it is important to consider the year they were published or written as they will likely represent a specific school of thought. Additionally, the publishing date of other sources is important to examine in context with the events happening around its publishment. Many times things like magazine articles or newspapers can actually impact the history that they are a part of. For instance, there are many examples of propaganda during the Cold War period that can be used as either primary sources or secondary ones to analyze the time period, depending on the lens one uses. This means that the personal understandings and biases of different historians create new history with themselves and a new lens of looking at different historical time periods.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has revolutionized our ability to learn and share historical events, it gives us the power to connect with the whole world instantly. This gives us the ability to access any database on an intercultural and international level. There are certain drawbacks of technology and more specifically the internet, yes it does give us instant access to every piece of recorded history, however, anyone who has internet access and a computer can post something claiming that it is indeed part of history. This brings the problem of authenticity of history, you can easily go onto wikipedia for example( given it's not a very reliable source) and post anything on any topic and someone who doesn't know better may actually believe it, and it could be totally and completely false and made up.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

    The "true" role of a historian is the record significant events in the past or present without any bias', simply just stating the facts. Technically historians can both create and record history. What I mean by this is that a historian could simply state the facts and record the events as they happened(without bias), they can also interpret certain events and pieces of history with their potential bias', therefore "creating" history. I don't think the power of persuasion is a good trait for a historian, yes it may be a useful skill in life, but the power of persuasion can be dangerous coming from a historian. it would give them the power to argue the facts of history and try to push their own opinions and bias' into the "history books"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

    No. No one should talk meaningfully about a historical fact unless they either saw it happen with their own eyes, or the person was around during this event. People want to believe what the people tell them. They want to make the story better and appealing. Unfortunately, the story probably did not happen the way that some people might tell you. For example, can we really know with any certainty what Alexander the Great accomplished over 2000 years ago? We may get an idea of the big picture, but the small, factual, individual stories are hard to come by.

    2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has had a major impact on the way we study history. With such things as video and recordings, we can closely examine most historical events from the last 100 years with certainty. Today, unlike thousands or even hundreds of years ago, people cannot stretch a story or increase its legacy. In recent day, we have facts to back up historical events. Facts that cannot be stretched. We can observe the recent years of history more directly, but should approach historical events from many years ago with a grain of salt. Without living humans from that era, it is hard to approach events from the past with certainty .

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1)One can talk meaningfully about a historical fact. It all depends on what you describe meaningful as, but in my perspective, meaningful does not have to be restating facts, but drawing one’s own interpretations and coming to conclusions. These meaningful conversations would be based on a historical fact of course, and those can be provided by primary sources. We can talk about something in the past with certainty by understanding that the event we talk about may not have occurred exactly as we know it to be.

    2) The role of technology has greatly affected the study of history. With the internet and increased number of specific topic related databases, any person studying or interested in history with access to these sites can open an unlimited variety of sources. Determining whether a source is accurate is also easier by being able to quickly locate the origins of the piece and to research the author on the internet. We can observe the past more directly because with the increased amounts of interpretations and personal accounts published, we can gain a wider spectrum of the studied event.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
    To me, a historical fact is a something that we learn from historical analysis, that is objectively true. While many topics in history are complex issues that are neither black or white. However, there are times where it is objectively true on why something happened or how it ended. For example, it is commonly agreed that the black plague originated in Asia, that was then carried along the Silk Road to Europe. Another objective fact was that Hitler was freakin' crazy. The reason some people disagree with that is more emotional than actually factual.These facts do carry meaning in that they can really carry a profound impact on ones view of the world. After WW2, one could say that the societies of Europe were different than before, more progressive than nationalistic. While not everyone learns from history, it does make its impact in one way or another.
    2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?
    In the past, historical information was destroyed because copies were no longer available and knowledge was lost. Now, even with the effort of tyrannical governments, knowledge can not be suppressed. With access to the internet, people and historians alike have access to an abundances of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree sources for every major event in history. Viewing into the past is much easier now, especially the time post 80's. For better or for worse, almost every event is tracked or captured on camera and is uploaded to the internet, never to come off. Digesting history as well as recording it, has never been easier.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?
    Technology has been both beneficial and hindering towards the study of history. Firstly, the internet provides an astronomical amount of data and information with free access from anywhere around the world. Instead of actively seeking out all of the books, the information can all be analyzed and found in one place. The easy access allows historians to find a greater amount of evidence, leading to more accurate historical textbooks and papers. However, there are also some downsides to the advanced technology and the study of history. While the internet offers more information, often there is so much evidence that it makes it difficult for the historian to analyze sources as well; there are too many works and not enough time to consider all the sources. Moreover, the internet becomes unreliable because almost any person can create and make up their own evidence. This hinders the historian from finding facts from the lies and creating an accurate paper.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    A historian’s job is to study and interpret the past, recording the different accounts and creating an opinion about the certain topic. Historians are both recording and creating history at the same time, keeping track of past events and creating history from their own interpretations. When writing the historical investigation, we were asked in our reflection on what we learned about historians. I found that it is often difficult for historians to keep their own bias and opinions from hindering their historiographies; some historians are able to put their biases mostly to the side through their diction and analysis. However, this bias can benefit the interpretation and recording of history. Each historian’s point of view and compilation can be studied and understood in order for an individual to gain a greater understanding of the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 2. The methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation should be positively affected by technological development. However, the use of the legitimate researching methods available for anyone with an internet connection are typically not taken advantage of. The average person in the US learns history through TV shows, articles on news applications, and social media. Although the revolution of technology has opened up billions of doors to incredible sources of information, it also created a competitiveness to article writing called clickbait. Although there may have been a form of this in earlier days such as in catchy news article titles, there is no doubt that the catching of attention is now weighted to a ridiculous extent, skewing the knowledge we gain from many sources about history to extremes. In the past, libraries and books were more common, and published works of history must go through a validation process to an extent, and provide sources of information, whereas online articles are not required to undergo either of those processes

    3. The role of a legitimate historian is to provide not necessarily an unbiased source of information, but a valuable source of historical documentation or analysis that is transparent in purpose. A historian can either record history, or create it, being that history as an area of knowledge includes the interpretation of the past. Historians must construct historical models that focus on specific aspects of the past so that the more critical pieces of history can be learned. However, this means that most historians do not simply record history because in the act of recording, they add bias that alters the past in almost all cases. The personal understandings of history is definitely desirable in the interpretation and recording of history, I would argue! In global studies, we evaluate the origin, purpose, limitations, and values of dozens of sources. What I have found is that, although origins and purposes can add huge amounts of bias to a work, those same biases present incredibly valuable knowledge about the time period they were written, the type of historian that wrote it, the area in which the work was written, etc. The power of persuasion is a good characteristic of a good historian, to an extent. Part of the changing directions of history has become the persuasion of alternate routes that historians should take in the pursuit of analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Question 2: Where it counts, not much at all. I know that sounds absolutely insane considering what the digital record or visuals have allowed for in source material, and yes, it absolutely has provided a greater wealth of source material to draw from. But that’s only a portion of historical study, what still matters most is source evaluation, and historical interpretation. In the end there is little changing with respect to evaluating the credibility of a source, just the type or number of sources being verified. In the end we still draw conclusions from those sources just as we did before the advent of network technology. Transmitting the information can of course be done in newer mediums, but and does indeed make observation of primary source material in the form of images or videos far easier for non-academics who have limited interest or skill in understanding historical texts.

    Question 4: That depends on how you define the past. Are we talking a few seconds ago, a few years? To make some sense of it all, I will atest, no, not all knowledge is historical knowledge. History involves the study of the past, but mainly in a sense of what is most notable, which clearly not all knowledge is. The fact that I know I ate a bowl of granola this morning, is simultaneously past and non-notable knowledge, therefore its not historical. And if a piece of knowledge can be proven not to be historical, then not all knowledge is historical.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    In a way technology has both negatively and positively affected the study of history. The development of new technology has made it easier to study different interpretations and analysis of historical events. We now have access to various sources that can help us further understand a topic and the different sides. However, the development of technology has also publicized fake news. With social media, the internet, tv, and other media outlets it is easy to believe the headlines without checking the source. We can study and understand the past more effectively and efficiently but there can also be more variance and interpretations.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of
    persuasion a characteristic of a good historian

    The historian both creates and records history. Their role is to research, study, and write about the past. They also create their own interpretation of the historical event through their research. Some historians have the opportunity to put their bias aside when researching and analyzing history. Most historians do however include their bias in their interpretations which can make them more valuable when comparing them to other historians. Power of persuasion can be useful for a historian but they also need quality evidence and analysis to create a reliable interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has no doubt had and still has a major impact on how we study history. With technology such as the printing press, the video camcorder, and social media we know have platforms and resources that help us better record and deliver news to a broader audience. We are able to access these articles from newspapers in online databases for our own use. These platforms make accessing history easier now than ever, considering that these articles of history at literally at our fingertips. I believe that we can now observe the past more directly with the use of technology that preserves history and lets us get a first hand account for what happened at that particular day in time.

    1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

    I personally believe that we can meaningfully talk about a certain historical fact, however it is rather an opinion or one's own perspective of that historical item. We can obtain information from one's own perspective of the historical item, however it may not be the most factual representation of the item because everyone interprets everything differently. This is especially true if the person speaking of the historical item was not actually there when the item was historically indited or if the person does not have the correct information regarding the item. I think that we can not talk of certainty when discussing the past because as a story is told from one person to another, there are always small detailed that are either left out or switched around which continues in this cycle until the story is not credible with the correct information of this historical event or item.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has undoubtably benefitting us in the ways we are now able to study history. It allows us to study certain historical events with more clarity as well as share our findings with the entire world on the internet. For example, we can now pinpoint how old artifacts are and also share this knowledge on the internet. I believe that we can observe the past more directly because of these advancements in technology. The internet leaves lots of room for debate, however, as everybody's perspectives and interpretations of history can be recorded publicly.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

    -I believe that the role of the historian is to write in an unbiased, legitimate manner that is as historically accurate as possible. Their primary goals should include researching about past events and recording their findings. In a way, historians create history by their own interpretations of the historical events. This is why it is important that they remain as neutral and unbiased as they can be. The power of persuasion is not really a good trait for a historian unless they are trying to bribe their audience to believe something that has been deemed as true and historically accurate. However I believe that the audience should ultimately come to their own conclusions about the events they are taught.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
    one can talk meaningfully of a historical past because that past might have some sort of significant impact on their life or their family's life. Anyone can talk meaningfully about anything that they patiently believe in whether it is right or wrong. We are unable to speak with certainly about the past unless some one was there and can tell people what happened in that moment. This data still might be not fully correct defending on what kind of bias the person has and what they thought was happening vs what was actually happening. we might be able to speak with certainly about the past when our technology becomes strong enough to travel back into the past. or in the present preserve each thing that happened as detailed as possible.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    A historian is some one who looks and interprets history as accurately as possible. They are responsible to record significant events as well. a historian in a way creates history because they are the ones interpreting the old history to re tell to some one else, to teach. The historian is unfortunately full of their own bias even id they try to be as unbiased as possible each person has their own point of view and ideals. the power of persuasion is not necessarily good in a historian because they might change the historical event that was originally good to a bad historical event in their persuasion to believe the history in the way that they interpret it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
    As historians, we can talk meaningfully about historical fact, however it is often incredibly challenging to pinpoint historical nuances and actually conclude exactly who is responsible to what extent. History is not objective since all individuals who experience event may interpret it differently. The past is different to everyone who experienced it and therefore, the way it is remembered, the history, is also going to be different. It is easy to outline the narrative of history because what happened is known and proved, however the motives, responsiblities, and moral implications that accompany the perspective are often hard to discern as they were never clear in the first place.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    Historians create history, they do not record it. History is recorded when it is first witnessed in the flesh, however it is the job of the history to comprise a comprehensive recreation of what happened based upon all of the witnesses. The witnesses stories develop into historical truths, then historical theories are created, and the arguing ensues. In history, there is no such thing as being objective. People see things from different points of view and we each all live our own truth and no one persons truth is more correct than another's. However, the fact that all historians are biased is not a bad thing, it just allows the reader to make connections between the historian and his/her work and understand what is valuable about the bias and what is not. Inherently bias actually adds value as long as one is able to recognize the bias. By evaluating historical writing, and understanding how the origin and purpose relates to the value and purpose, we can turn the source into something that is entirely useful. The power of persuasion is clearly a characteristic of a good historian as history is an argument, so persuasion naturally helps one argue better. However, it is the job of the reader to still evaluate a source that is incredibly persuasive and not let it fool them into thinking the source is the objective truth.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

    There is nothing that we can talk about with full accuracy because it is in the past. There is know way to know for certain whether or not something has happened, if you have not firsthand experienced it. There are ways to lead us to certainty, or at least lead us near there, and that is through evidence and sources. We can try our best to predict what had truthfully happened through evidence of the event and from people's stories of experience. Even then there will be some uncertainty due to the bias of the person, but if we receive several stories, we can create a well balanced hypothesis. One can talk meaningfully about a historical fact, but not with certainty. If that person has correct knowledge about the historical fact, they can talk meaningfully, but there is no way to fully prove is something happened how we believe it to have happened.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recordings of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

    History happens, and it is up to the historian to record, evaluate, and interpret what has happened. Whether or not we record it, events are going to happen. So either way, history will happen if historians record what is happening. Nothing will ever be able to be fully unbiased, so a historian will never be able to be free of bias. So, no matter what they select and interpret of the material, it will be biased to some extent. Because of this, the personal understandings of historians should be known in order to interpret and understand their own bias. This can help us not only interpret the event, but also the people witness to it in that society. By knowing their bias, we can understand more about the society. I do not think the power of persuasion is necessarily a characteristic of a good historian. Yes, it will help them argue, but it does not affect the interpretation of history. Having the power of persuasion may be a good attribute for a good historian to have, but I do not think it is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Question 1:
    One (maybe a historian) can talk meaningfully of a historical fact/ event but whether others agree on that opinion is up to debate. We can only assume what happened in the past through the words of others trying to assert historical facts. Its is similar to the knowledge we have from our parents as children. As we grow up we take into account information from others, and we choose what to believe in, and what not. Same goes for history, whether Osama was killed or not is left for the reader to decide. The information “available” is laid out for the person, but in the end they get to formulate their own conclusions over a specific event. From here you have opinions/views on a particular historical event, and from this the most radical ideas one can get are conspiracies(most). Some are quite funny rather than legit.


    Question 3:
    The job/role of a historian is to argue. Arguing is what puts their ideas to the test, and is the whole idea of being a historian. Historians research the history recorded by others in order to formulate their own. From here is where a historian creates history. It is impossible to interpret a historical event without bias in play (some more than others). Bias over an event (ex. Cold War) provides the information on the event from the perspective of both sides. This provides the context for another historian to analyze both pieces, and analyze them according to their reasons, and evaluation of sources. For readers, this can lead them to lean towards one side, if they have not read other works and evaluated each accordingly. Persuasion is good to convince people of your view of a historical event, but it also can be dangerous because if people seem to only follow one interpretation, this closes the door for other historical interpretations for society to look at, and evaluate.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1.I believe that we can definitely talk meaningfully about history and things that have happened in the past because they are human events and up to interpretation. The way we place blame and talk about causes and consequences allow us to debate history and talk about its significance. The most meaningful way we can talk about history in the past is by talking about the significance of events and the long term consequences. One example of this is the interpretations of the cold war. Using different lenses, historians are able to debate who caused and ended the cold war and the different influencers along the way. I think that it is nearly impossible to talk about events with certainty but in allowing different interpretations and acknowledging them we can work to tell and know the complete story.
    Technology as a whole has drastically increased the availability of information and the forums of information available. Because of the increase in information there are way more interpretations available. There is also now the issue of false information and really biased interpretations. I think that even though we have more facts available to us now we have to learn to and practice weeding out the false facts and classifying and evaluating evidence. I think the access awarded by the internet has actually brought us further from our study of history because there is so much information in the way that has to be sorted through.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
    Sure, facts are simply pieces of information that we have so exhaustively come to the conclusion of via the work of ‘ologists. While they are not necessarily correct, they have been repetitively demonstrated. Reality is difficult to determine, it is only by this process that we can approach the asymptote of truth. Truly it cannot be said what is real, only what is most likely real. Historical fact is still subject to these principles and should be treated with this in mind. Facts can be revised if demonstrated to be inaccurate, so too can history.
    What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    To curate, and compose history. History is not extant until it is created by a historian, as history only models events that have previously occurred. History is not in it of itself those events, but rather a record which includes interpretations and latent bias. However, despite the omnipresent bias, these interpretations are critical to the continued interpretation of history. In fact understanding those interpretations is its own field of work, historiography. Interpretation helps draw connections between events, repeated interpretation weeds out poor historians, and finally the study of those interpretations over time allows a refinement of historical methodology itself. Persuasion is a skill that can augment a historian's work, however it would require the caliber of the work being done to be good for that persuasion to be effective.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
    The only way we know about historical events is from what we learn in school, through old documents and journals, and personal experience. No one can really speak with 100% certainty about the past because everyone is going to have a different opinion and view on what happened, so one event cannot be narrowed own by one point of view. Most historical events we learn about, we learn through our parents or other people who experienced the events first hand.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
    I think the only reason we can talk about a certain point in the past is because there are enough people who was there in the moment or has many sources to prove it that we believe that the more we hear it and if it is told in the same way then we can make ourselves believe that it is true. We also look for evidence and things in which we can make sure or theories are accurate and we can tell the story.
    2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?
    i think that as time passes we are able to keep track of things a little more precisely because with new technology we can take pictures and videos of everything anytime anywhere. Everyone has a phone these days so anyone can take a video o a picture

    ReplyDelete
  28. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has made history more tangible and more involved. Technology allows for carbon dating, chromatography, and other means of contextualizing artifacts which would otherwise have no context. Events can be better understood than ever before not through records but through the use of relevant tech. When a body believed to be Richard III was discovered underneath a parking lot, historians initially relied on the context of where the body was buried (near a relevant church) and visible evidence (spine irregularities). Only through DNA and dental testing could they reach a definitive answer. This is one example, but this can happen with almost any trapping of history. Technology like facial reconstruction and methods for preserving artifacts have made the study of history more interactive. We can recreate the past with breathtaking accuracy using data. This takes away the element of pure imagination which could arguably have been more immersive, but does provide accurate representation.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?
    The role of a historian is to create a historical argument. They formulate chronologies of their own, and although they do include events and concepts that objectively occurred, the organization is a creation of history. This creation cannot be free of bias because any historical chronology requires a point or a means of deciding what is omitted. Even if this means is a simple algorithm (more than one thousand people affected, or similar), its selection incorporates bias. Because of this, evaluating the personal biases and backgrounds of historians is vital. A historian writing in a non-contemporary time will most likely have different biases and opinions than a contemporary one. If possible, listening to historians with directly conflicting biases add a complexity of the situation that is inherent in human interaction but which is difficult to recount without bias. Historians should strive to convince readers of their conclusions with solid evidence. A lack of convincing skills means a person is a bad historian in my mind, because the role of the historian is to defend, and convince their positions in a field.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

    One can interpret a “historical fact.” In history there is no one right answer. History will always be disputed and always is. We learn history in textbooks which is inevitably prone to some bias.We do not get to see or experience the history first hand so all we have is second hand “known” knowledge and have to make assumptions and opinions off of what we are told. We can not speak about anything in the past with certainty because not everyone experiences accounts in the same manner so they all have their own different version of the story. History is subjective in itself and should be discussed intellectually with others to see different viewpoints and get a larger perspective and understanding of an event.


    4. To what extent is the very nature of this Area of Knowledge affected by being about the past? In what ways do other Areas of Knowledge also concern themselves with the past? Is all knowledge, in a sense, historical knowledge?

    It is affected by bias, a story cannot be told without inherently having bias. Memory concerns itself very much with history because memory is pliable and we often have skewed memories of what we perceived of an account. As a topic grows older we have more time to analyze it which gives rise to looking through different historical lenses. One should first look at the event through the lense and mentality of the period to see their thought process. In today’s society we are so used to looking at everything through the lens of our time but this should be expected because we are a product of this society. All knowledge can be considered historical knowledge because it happened in the past and we still use it today, picking and pulling certain things out of context for our own use.

    ReplyDelete

  30. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

    Ha ha! Trick question! Nothing we ever speak about is certain. Humans bring their own bias into everything without meaning to. Sometimes its not even because of an agenda in the back of their mind but just because they were raised to say things a certain way which in turn carry certain contexts.


    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

    You should never be trying to persuade your reader of anything as a historian. Your job isn't to pick sides, its to record. Bias and interpretation are of course going to happen but you don't strive for it. You tell the "truth" as you understand it through research.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 2. Technology has made historical information much more accessible, but also much more uncertain. It is certainly more easy to find factual information due to the invention of the internet, but it is more difficult to prove its validity. Technological development has certainly improved and simplified our methods of gaining evidence and our means of communicating historical interpretation. It no longer takes access to a specialized library nor a research grant to form one's own historical interpretation. This does mean that we can observe the past more directly, because we can more easily find primary sources with which to understand the past.

    3. The historian should record history, not create it, though those with little evidence to support their claims arguably create false history. It is impossible, however, for the historian to be free of bias. The act of choosing evidence requires some kind of opinion, and as such their bias will always b expressed in their work. A bias, however, does not always make an interpretation less factual, as long as the facts are presented without bias as well. Yes, the personal understandings of historians are desirable, as it is what qualifies them to make the claims that they do. The power of persuasion should not be a characteristic of a good historian. The truth of their interpretations should be apparent in the strength of their evidence, not in their ability to convince.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

    We can speak with certainty of the past in regards to events that have happened in our personal lives because these are first hand encounters. It is harder to be certain about historical facts because you simply have to believe what you are told or whatever information Historians present to you. All historical facts are meaningful in some way because they have an effect on events that occur afterwards. Things in the past can be captured through media these days as well which allows us to be more certain about the information presented.

    2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has allowed us to have a more accurate interpretation of what has happened in the past due to the fact it captures moments exactly the way they happen. How people view these moments is all generally very similar because interpretation is limited. Communication now happens all through technology and the media. Soon there will be no more written documents in our society and across the world, everything will be online which has its pros and cons. We can definitely observe the recent past more direct because it can be understood what has actually happened with the proof of media

    ReplyDelete
  33. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    I think technology allows us to get our history at a quicker pace, and we can look up any historical event whenever we want. A lot of our historical event in the future will be completely based on the internet. I know that I personally believe that the 2016 election turned out the way it did purely due to meme culture. we took this whole election as a joke until it was too late the memes surround the elections are iconic, but end the end it cause people to not take it seriously. like people literally wasted their vote on a dead gorilla meme. If meme culture is not talked about in the future when regarding the 2016 election the youth of the future will be robbed of an Important aspect of history.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

    I think Ideally the historian should only record the historical events however, realistically, you know that everyone is biased when they write and no one can truly be impartial and because of this historical facts will never be recorded as accurately as we may like the to be. I don't think a god historian should have to be able to persuade people, history is pretty much just supposed to be based on facts, and what lead to events occurring and the aftermath that they had...so I don't personally think a good historian is supposed to be persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 2)In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    I feel like technology has affected the study of history in a bunch of ways. In ways that I don't think a lot of people imagined. And these ways could be for the both better, or worse but in ways nonetheless. I feel like technology has probably helped us find out different parts of history in a faster more efficient way, that's how we have been gaining more information on the past in a faster way. With technology going at its pace I feel that we can find out a lot from the past, considering not even 100 years ago we were already finding new findings of old civilizations, who knows what we can find in another 30 or 40 years.

    3) What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

    The role of a historian is to study the past and that that goes with it. I feel like the question of “does a historian record history or create it?” Is quite the doozy because I feel like they do both. When it comes to history I feel like it's a matter of fact and perspective. Someone like a historian is expected to record it but, what if they don't record it according to the facts ? And just base it on a matter of personal opinion? Would that make it seem like they essentially “created” history? Probably right? So I'm a way how would we know that they created it since we would think it would be fact ? It would be pretty messed up if a historian would tamper with important information that has to do with history, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future that a major part of history will be debunked.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has made a huge impact in the way we are able to observe and record history. With the vast accessibility to technology that citizens have access to, it is becoming increasingly more common to have several recordings or images of a single event. In this way, as historians we are able to look back upon history and observe a single event through several different lenses, literally. With this vast accessibility to technology, it also leaves historians susceptible to contrasting interpretations from different views. This can also lead to the issue of fake news in which incorrect facts are spread and thus change the perception in the public eye. However, the recent advancements in technology also allow for a clearer and more precise image of the past, which allow historians to be able to observe and decipher the past directly.

    3. What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Could it be reasonably argued that the personal understandings of historians, despite their possible bias, is necessary or even desirable in the interpretation and recording of history? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

    I believe that it is up to historians to record but not create history. It is there job to record the facts and events of the past, free of bias. It is then up to the reader to interpret the facts how they may which will ultimately lead to a bias opinion, however historians should not affect the readers interpretation. It is a bad quality to have as a historian to be persuasive for the greater good of the public, because if the historian is covertly persuasive, if fed to the masses, there will be no individuality within the population as well as a possibly wrong bias of the past.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 1. Yes one can talk meaningfully about a historical fact because of the ability to record things and one's own memory if they happened to take part in the historical undertaking. One can speak with certainty about the past because there a textbooks and books in general that provide legitimate information. However that information may be biased due to the tendency for events in history to have two different sides but generally the facts are correct. This is because historically mankind records what has just occurred whether it be via journal or newspaper. It is what preserves history throughout all the years.

    4. This area of knowledge is greatly affected by being about the past. The past is a flexible topic that can be twisted and turned around depending on where the information is coming from. History has an aspect of legitimacy taken away from it. However there are many other areas of knowledge that are affected by the past. Such as art, which is to some extent an extension of history in that is a portrayal of the past through a picture. Not all knowledge is historical knowledge however, there is knowledge that is created in the present such as in science when a discovery is made. Though the knowledge used is something learned in the past and in that sense would be historical knowledge. It all is depending on what is considered to be the past.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

    We can speak with certainty about the past because we have evidence to base our opinions and facts on. We have artifacts from the past that lead us to certain conclusions that we can then confidently share. Because of this we can meaningfully discuss a historical fact since we have a basis for our opinions. With this, we can assume we are correct and accurate in our presumptions.

    2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has made recording history more public and accessible to people everywhere. A video of a historic event can now be posted on social media and be seen by people in different countries that otherwise would not have been able to. Because of this we can witness history more directly and as it is happening as opposed to waiting for years for it to be published or talked about.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 1. Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

    One can speak meaningfully of a historical fact. This may be done by interpreting the fact and connecting it back to real life situations now, or projected occurrences in the future. It may also be meaningful because it may help uncover the truth of other historical facts. History fits together like a puzzle, and each piece is important in understanding the next. One can speak with certainty about something in the past when it is validated extensively by evidence, whether this be written or spoken testimonies. It also must align with other facts that pertain to the subject matter.

    2. In what ways has technology affected the study of history? How have the methods of gaining evidence and the means of communicating historical interpretation, for example, been affected by technological development? Can we now observe the past more directly?

    Technology has affected the study of history by opening up opportunities for the investigation of evidence that may lead to more sturdy facts. The methods of gaining evidence have increased as technology has allowed us to use scientific means to test the date of artifacts, as well as decipher incomplete texts. Communication of this gained knowledge has changed as the internet has developed, which provides information to anyone anywhere. We now can observe the recent past more directly by means such as video and photos.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 1. yes, I believe that many things in the past can be discussed with complete certainty. All it takes is multiple interviews from various first hand sources. That way, you can put all of your findings together and mesh together a version of the truth, while also weaseling out various facts that are too far fetched and those that don't fit into anyone else's account of what happened. Now the story definitely changes when it comes to having just one person tell the entire story for an event. But if no one else is there to testify, then we are forced to accept that they told the story correctly. So much so, that if the information was important enough, that one mans story could go down in history as fact, to be remembered by everyone for centuries to come. At that point, I ask you VT, does it even matter that what we say is the truth, as long as no one could prove you wrong?

    2. Well in the past, it was up to people to write down everything that happened. In fact way back in the past, events were just recorded and people moved on. Nowadays, a historical event can't be taken seriously without knowledge of the economical standpoint at the time. This has only become possible because of the rise in technology. Also, we can now get mass opinion and information much easier with tech because we can do online surveys and reach many thousands more people much faster. In the past, someone who wanted to survey an entire city might take weeks to do so.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.