On the other thread the topic was brought up about accessing history and data on the internet. I was thinking about how now there's entire libraries of millions of books on the internet now that can be downloaded for free, most of them very old and historical. I've looked at some of these pdf'd books 100+ years old and the information they provide is presented in a different fashion then what you see today, and typically much more articulate and detailed. A question came to mind after seeing these books written so long ago; what would you trust more, books written today about topics decades and hundreds of years ago, or books that were actually written at the time hundreds of years ago ? Now days so many books, especially about social issues, are written PC (politically correct), and some historical books are nothing more than revisionist "history". IMO, I'd rather read a book written at the time of an issue than a book written today now that they're so easily available. What do you trust more, a book written today about something long ago, or a book actually written at the time of something that happened long ago ?
if it were written in the language we speak today by the people from then, yea, I would trust it but most of the stuff has to be translated and back then who knows what meaning they were putting in the words, if it's been translated or rewritten by man, the longer it's been the harder it is to believe, for me at least.
Two thirds of all writing on current political subjects is revisionist and politically correct. The journalist does revisionist writing about things that happened the day before to be politically correct for his audience. Different audiences like different sets of political correctness. This was true in 1790 as well as it is now. A good history will take a bunch of conflicting BS lies from opposing camps of old historic political correctness and in those conflicting lies he will try to find the truth. A bad historian will cherry pick from the conflicting historic lies to find support for the history that fits with his current political correctness. I don't know about the past writers being more articulate. The original sources can write in more detail because they are usually writing about one event where as the historians are usually writing about many events and may even be summarizing. Most people who use the phrase "politically correct" usually are irritated because somebody is undermining their preferred storyline. The truth can't be known only probability can be educatedly guessed at by people who love truth. Most people have no love for truth. They just love their side and are loyal to it. Loyalty and love for the truth can not coexist. You have to pick one or the other. Love for the truth demands complete disloyalty to all ideas, groups, disloyalty to pride and disloyalty to your self. When you are being loyal you are not open to the truth; you are only open to stories which support your side and if you are lucky some of those stories may just happen to be true.
On the other hand books written at the time could be coloured by the perceptions of the events: e.g. if your country has just lost a war then the "other guy" is obviously going to be the baddy and painted as such. There's also the factor of limited information: books written long after the event will probably be based on documents from all sides of the argument, as opposed to those at the time which would be based on what was available at the time and therefore necessarily bounded. Maybe I'd better clarify my vote. If I wanted to know about the event, the context and the fallout of that event then I would much prefer (and trust) books written later. If I wanted to know about the perceptions of that event then I'd read the books written at the time.
That's true, but that also occurs today in books written about events hundreds of years ago. I won't be specific because this thread will go on a tangent course, but in most books written today about an event that occured hundreds of years ago, the books are very PC and one-sided portraying one side as the bad guys and deliberately ignore anything that might portray the other side as bad guys. And as for old books, indeed you could find bias in 400 year old books written for example about the Church of England, depending on if it was written by an Englishman or written by someone in the Catholic Church. BUT, if you read both, I bet you'd find more fine details than you would in a book written about the subject in 2010.
I disagree with this to a point. Yes you're right, there are people that just want to hear their point of view, but there are also people that are critical thinkers that are interested in hearing all points of view to form their own opinions. And then there's people who are biased, but still want to read the opposing point of view to "know their enemy" so to speak.
Presumably you mean the original, written-at-the-time documents? And just how reliable would they be? Bearing in mind that at the time they were written it is highly unlikely that the writer would have access to all of the relevant facts, e.g. in the event of a war would the writer have access to the enemy's archives giving their reasoning on the situation? X writes a history claiming that country A invaded his country (B) unprovoked. Access to A's archives (as could be done much later by a historian) may reveal that A's national perception was that B's economic policy (or trade agreements with country C, or arms deals to A's long-term enemy D) was a direct threat and that the invasion was fully justified. Historians writing at or near the time of events do not complete picture in general.
Be skeptical! Believe only the possibility that what you are reading may contain an element of truth! I recommend, by the Australian-born author Phillip Knightley, the excellent "The First Casualty" [of War is Truth] for enlightenment on just how little credence you should give to what you read when your nation is at war. In regard to the history of WWII (so often a sciforums topic), bear in mind that: [1] the Nuremberg Trials were as much show trials as anything Stalin had orchestrated earlier in his career (trust nothing of this source!); [2] for thirty years, histories were written in ignorance of the role played by the British codebreakers (it was deemed necessary to keep their work Top Secret); [3] the national archives at Kew contain wartime files marked "Closed Until 2045" (to avoid embarrassment?) Generally, the Truth takes a long time to emerge, but remember that contemporary reporting does, after all, tell us how people saw things at the time -- and that is quite a big part of hstory.
Unless someone was actually there (witness to the event that occurred) then it is open to interpretation but i usually accept mainstream versions of events. to answer the question: I would accept when the event is freshest, barring that the interpretation is unbiased. One problem is adding facts or omitting facts, peoples becoming corrupted through dramatic interpretations like movies or books which relate points in history that did not occur and then people accept the interpretation as factual. Normally this would be imbecilic but actually does occur. We even have 'reality' t.v that isnt really reality at all.
All periods had revisionist writer, If you think Herodotus was not revisionist when he wrote his histories, then you are very trusting. 19th century historians are notoriously bad, revising virtually everything to help it conform to their moral world view. Yet 18th century historians were in many ways worse. The whole notion that history and scholarship in general should be "objective" is a modern phenomenon (that we seem to be losing). The *only* good way to learn history is to read everything from primary sources to later scholarship, and hope that in the crucible of critical analysis, the calx that emerges will contain the truth.
http://www.archive.org/details/texts Enjoy, until PCness shuts it down. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So, there is something wrong with revising history? Most professional historians, looking at the poll, would sadly shake their heads at the idea that history written at the time of the event was to be trusted better than the sifting and weighing of accumulated evidence by those removed from the political or patriotic bias of the time. No; I've got that wrong! Not "most", but ANY professional historian. If you get the chance, ASK! What enemy was not painted in the blackest shade of villainy when war was being waged? What exaggerated rumours were not given the gloss of truth by war correspondents keen to file a good story? What secret diplomatic manoeuvres were known of at the time, or even for years after? In Britain, the annual release of papers under the Thirty Year Rule often quite changes the perspectives under which events should properly have been interpreted. And how about the memoirs written by political figures set free by retirement from the need to keep their silence on sensitive issues? Certainly they are not to be trusted, but they are often revealing of motives that were previously unknown. The truth may take a long time to emerge; sometime, of course, it never does. So to those who would trust history written at the time, I say: Don't you believe there are things kept secret in the interests of the powerful? Do you believe contemporary historians are able to read the minds of those who rule? Don't you believe they have motives of their own for the slant they give to the story of their times? The INTERNATIONALISATION of the forums in which today's historians operate give at least some hope that attempted deception will be exposed.
Hisorical events and records are rewritten to convey the politics of the time just go ask the state of Texas.
It's endlessly arguable which of contemporarily written history or distantly written history is the more reliable. Both are equally susceptible of bias and selectivity at the ministrations of historians. I'm deeply interested in certain aspects of history and have come to recognise certain authors that I trust. I rarely by new off the shelf unless I have some trust in the author's erudition in his subject or am familiar with other examples of his work. On the internet I can simultaneously read a synopsis of the book and a short bio of the author on Wikipedia to help in my decision to buy or not. IMHO, informing one's self as broadly as possible through as many different sources as possible will always be the best way of gaining the closest to historical truth. Attend particularly to each author's bibliography and other sources of his history. Note whether he favours a bias to certain institutional or national sources. Compare bibliographies and note shared sources and sources ignored. A seriously detailed index indicates a seriously detailed history but not necessarily an accurate or comprehensive one. In the long run, being well educated on any aspect of history, IMHO, depends largely upon how much one is dedicated to putting in the time and effort. I frequently am put in mind of George Santayana's dictum concerning history; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Governments and nations demonstrate a depressing determination to show that he is speaking an implacable truth. That's why I think a good understanding of history, much better than we are led to believe by politicians, would provide fewer opportunities for conflict. There'd be so little for politicians to do that we could indeed feed them peanuts. Biggles, Prime
Actually I'm a little more in favour of modern research over original articles. Modern historians have a little less of an axe to grind, have access to all the original writings, and the opportunity to make an analysis using hindsight rather than trying to analyse things in the heat of the moment, as it were. If you're going to be an historian, then by all means go to the source and make up your own mind, paying all due attention to those who have studied the same topic as yourself throughout history. If, however, you are going to read history, as the thread title seems to imply, then a well-researched modern version is slightly more likely to contain a balanced view. Any reader of history worth his salt can make the distinction between that which represents "history" as close as possible to truth, and what is mere opportunistic bunk.
