Is all history biased?

[Tuahaa]

Okay, i need two points against it (i.e. saying history is not biased), I have finished most of the homework, so think quick please! And give examples.

I need three arguments for and against the statement and gotta write hellofalot about it for homework (is it just me or do younger teachers enjoy giving more homework?).

So now I need two points against the statement.

 

[Tuahaa]

one more point needed!

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Okay, i need two points against it (i.e. saying history is not biased), I have finished most of the homework, so think quick please! And give examples.

I need three arguments for and against the statement and gotta write hellofalot about it for homework (is it just me or do younger teachers enjoy giving more homework?).

So now I need two points against the statement.

History is not biased, Historic narratives are biased. Every Nation tries to construct its narratives, and selectively uses the parts of history that are favorable to, and discard/suppress the parts of history that are unfavorable.

case: Shiek Mujibur Rehman is a traitor/indian agent because he dismembered Pakistan... but he is the father of Bangladesh. So the narratives of Pakistan and Bangladesh are different, not the historic facts.
The same can be extended to Jinnah, who is seen as traitor in India, but grand leader in Pakistan. Where the facts fall somewhere like "India is one small compromise between Jinnah and Nehru away from being United".

So the story goes on, either each country creates its narrative about the "Hindu Mentality/Domination" in case of Pakistan, to "Islamic Jingoism of Jinnah" in case of India.

May be this may help.. Please no

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Is all history biased?

Yes, thats the simple answer!

 

[siegecrossbow]

One word answer:

Duh!

 

[Jackdaws]

Biased, no - slanted, yes. Depending on which side you favor / root for. Classic example are the two movies of Clint Eastwood - Flags of Our Fathers (from American perspective of history) and Letter from Iwo Jima (same battle, Japanese perspective).

---------- Post added at 01:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------

By the way, I didn't realize - but I got a promotion - I became a Lt. Colonel.

 

[Tuahaa]

Thanks guys, but you're telling me things I already know! E.G. I'll give you a sample paragraph of what I am writing as one of the points:


Against the argument (All history not biased)

1. There is a middle ground. This is perhaps the main contributing factor as to why history is a very important neutral source of information. One does only have to choose to believe the neutral path- for example, take the recent Israeli flotilla raid. Israel may say that it was protecting its waters from dangerous terrorists and Turkey says that the flotilla raid was totally unjustified; we can conclude that the flotilla broke Israel’s blockade policy. Without considering human rights and the like (those topics are used as a tool by politicians anyhow), we can safely say that the boat breached and went against Israel’s policy and they felt it was alright to raid the ship and carried the operation out the way they did. That is the very basic root of understanding. Whether it was right or wrong will reflect on what ‘side’ we are on, and after this it is elevated to a stage where bias in history occurs.

 

[Tuahaa]

PS. Congratulations, Jackdaws

 

[Speaker]

Today's news will become part of history 50 years from now. If you don't trust the news you read since it is biased, you will consider the same for history as a consequence.

In your own flotilla example, all countries and media outlets had their own bias depending on their relation with Israel, so you needed all arguments to construct a wholesome and "unbiased" picture. This is not too tough with current affairs in the age of the internet, but becomes more challenging for historical facts that were recorded on hearsay.

 

[Tuahaa]

@Speaker, good point- I should have added that in. I'll add it in the morning since I have a maths test tomorrow and it's midnight.

Thanks again, your point about political relations really helped. I never thought of it!

---------- Post added at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 AM ----------

Never mind, I added your point. Now it's 12:11.

Better sleep.

Thanks

 

[Speaker]

@Speaker, good point- I should have added that in. I'll add it in the morning since I have a maths test tomorrow and it's midnight.

Thanks again, your point about political relations really helped. I never thought of it!

---------- Post added at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 AM ----------

Never mind, I added your point. Now it's 12:11.

Better sleep.

Thanks

You're welcome, and good luck for your math exam...

 

[Zeluvaa]

History by itself is not biased. Historical events which occurred are a reality, and their occurrence is a fact. Archaeological evidence and first hand accounts by people who witnessed these events can attest that they are real.

But wherever there is human involvement, there is bias. Humans by their very nature are biased, either consciously or subconsciously. Thus whenever you hear of historical events being reported by human accounts, one can assume that the account will be subjective and thus biased.

Take for example the genocide in Bangladesh in 1971. Some people mention the number of dead as high as 3 million and some as low as 30000. It is people's bias which will gravitate them towards believing either one of these numbers.

 

[niaz]

Agree 100%. Taking the example of the flotilla as noted in the earlier post. Historical fact is that the flotilla was stopped with the force of arms and it failed in its objectives. This will not change, no matter who writes the history.

How many people were killed/ wounded? Who fired the first shot? Is Israel justified in enforcing the blockade or were the nations trying to break the blockade on humanitarian grounds etc. correct, can be debated for years and interpreted depending upon which side of the fence one is looking at it.

Another example is the events of 1857. History books that I read were written in pre partition days where this event was described as “Gadar” or Mutiny, meaning a rebellion. Now the event is known as “war of liberation”. However real history remains that Indians tried to throw off the yoke of the British rule and failed. Description of the reasons why they failed and how many people were killed and affected is subject to the bias of the historians.

Most glaring example is the Moghal rule. Marathas (Mahadji Scindia) fought the English and re-established Shah Alam II on the Delhi throne. There were Rajput soldiers fighting for Aurangzeb against the Marathas. There were probably more Muslim Nawabs that became independent rulers than Hindu rulers as soon as Aurangzeb died, leading to the rapid collapse of Moughal empire. History books written by BJP depict all Muslim Rule as bigoted and degenerate.

It is also possible that a couple of generations from now, historians revaluate the subcontinent history and conclude that all things considered, British Raj was the best thing that happened.

 

[Tuahaa]

Well, I'm back, Math geometry test went quite well (but it was a bit easy since its start of year)- I've finished and printed my work about this topic to hand in tomorrow... Niaz, you gave a great example- I wish I could've put it in.

I also wrote a similar point to what you were saying, which was 'history is history, no matter what perspective you look at it'... Can you give your opinion on what I wrote against the argument (i.e. All history is not biased):

2. The cause of a certain event is always the same. To understand this point, we need to understand the motives behind why people have biased feelings in them. The first one, being the media, but that is only a magnifier of the bias in history, not history itself. The second one is history itself. For example, any Palestinian journalist will take a pro-Palestinian (again, not debating whether this is wrong or right) stance next time Israel does something controversial. Why? Because of the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel. Had this historical event (creation of Israel) not happened, anger against Zionism in the Muslim world simply would not have existed. So one could say that bias against Israel would have generated due to history itself- does that mean history is biased, or does that mean the ones making history have merely caused bias in favor or against them?


3. In the end, history is history. The most important factor in understanding that certain events did happen, and any bias in history is a mere interpretation or a means to control the beliefs of the masses (or in other words, the media). One must understand, before making any assumptions, that there will always be bias in the representation of history, but history itself is plain, hard facts. One must assume many possibilities. For example, one side of history may represent the war on Iraq (or ‘Iraqi Freedom’, as it was so ironically called) as necessary to keep global peace, while the other side may say it was only an excuse to grab oil. Perhaps it may have been both- if an individual wants to make an informed decision, they should consider both sides of the argument with credible evidence.




PS. It just so happens that my classmate searched up 'all history is biased' (after I posted this) in google for the same information and found this thread and my name... he asked me what I was doing today ...

And PSS. If you copy this, the teacher will catch you!

You know who you are...

 

[Speaker]

History books written by BJP depict all Muslim Rule as bigoted and degenerate.

I am no fan of the BJP, but I just wish you had expressed a more neutral stance by stating the other side of it. Truth is, India's history has been distorted in Pakistani textbooks as well - where the legends of Hindu and Buddhist monarchs are brushed aside and history "officially" starts with the arrival of Mohammed bin Qasim. For whatever it is worth, I have never seen Indians being thankful to Jinnah or Pakistanis being thankful to Nehru or Gandhi for getting us our freedom.

2. For example, any Palestinian journalist will take a pro-Palestinian (again, not debating whether this is wrong or right) stance next time Israel does something controversial. Why? Because of the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel. Had this historical event (creation of Israel) not happened, anger against Zionism in the Muslim world simply would not have existed. So one could say that bias against Israel would have generated due to history itself- does that mean history is biased, or does that mean the ones making history have merely caused bias in favor or against them?


3. For example, one side of history may represent the war on Iraq (or ‘Iraqi Freedom’, as it was so ironically called) as necessary to keep global peace, while the other side may say it was only an excuse to grab oil.

While analyzing the bias for/against Israel, you should have come across as unbiased yourself. If you want to judge Israel's existence as an 'illegal' occupation, that is a bias in itself. These words are commonly used in the Arab and Islamic countries and won't blame you for reading papers in Dubai and getting influenced. The other extreme would be Israeli authors who will proclaim the land to be their "birth right". The truth is somewhere in the middle, but in calling it an illegal occupation, you are taking sides, and not being as objective as you want to be.

I like your write up on the Iraq issue, and while the truth is the middle (American supremacy, oil, paranoia, in that order), I don't like the sentence "or ‘Iraqi Freedom’, as it was so ironically called" since that betrays a bias as well.