Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I'd really appreciate it if someone could read an essay I wrote as a part of a practice test
Thanks guys! 😀
Here's the prompt: In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective.
Looking back at the past is always a troublesome exercise: what is remembered may not always be the most correct version of what actually happened. Scientific studies have shown that it is an intrinsically human characteristic to color the past with subjective thought. That being said, it is improbable that the recording of history can be accomplished in a completely objective manner. The parties involved in any historical event will invariably tinge their version of the event with their own beliefs. For example, a British historian recording his take on World War II at the time might justify the actions of his country as morally superior: England was fighting a war against a brutish and cruel German army who threatened the safety of the world. However, a German historian might spin it the opposite way: Germany was merely seeking justice for the wrongs it had suffered at the end of World War I. So which is "correct"? Recorded history is fraught with such examples, and is, in some respects, highly subjective.
However, there are examples to the contrary. Take, for instances, the discovery of Neolithic Native American artifacts in the American Midwest. In places such as the Cahokia Mounds in Illinois, history is recorded not through words, which are so easily tinged with opinion, but with tangible artifacts of an ancient civilization. Here, those in the present day who wish to record the history of these societies must construct the past objectively by studying the physical evidence. No voices from the ancient world tell us what to think or how exactly to view this civilization. It is only the remains of weapons, pottery, clothing, etc that can help to define the characteristics of this slice of human history. Historians are forced to make conclusions from the data that is present. Thus, ironically, history regains its objectivity because those who lived it are not around to elucidate.
The objectivity of recorded history is contingent upon the relation of those who are doing the recording to the historical events in question. If a party is deeply connected or inherently related to the history being recorded, then it is likely (as was the case with the two versions of military morality in World War II) that objectivity will be sacrificed. Human nature compels those involved to "tell their side" and in doing so, they create records seeped in their own personal beliefs and justifications. However, if a historical event is much removed from the recorder, as is the case with the aforementioned ancient artifacts, then it is more likely that those recording history will do so by objectively examining the remnants of the past. Recorded history, then, is an paradoxical phenomenon in that it can be both objective and subjective at times.
Thanks guys! 😀
Here's the prompt: In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective.
Looking back at the past is always a troublesome exercise: what is remembered may not always be the most correct version of what actually happened. Scientific studies have shown that it is an intrinsically human characteristic to color the past with subjective thought. That being said, it is improbable that the recording of history can be accomplished in a completely objective manner. The parties involved in any historical event will invariably tinge their version of the event with their own beliefs. For example, a British historian recording his take on World War II at the time might justify the actions of his country as morally superior: England was fighting a war against a brutish and cruel German army who threatened the safety of the world. However, a German historian might spin it the opposite way: Germany was merely seeking justice for the wrongs it had suffered at the end of World War I. So which is "correct"? Recorded history is fraught with such examples, and is, in some respects, highly subjective.
However, there are examples to the contrary. Take, for instances, the discovery of Neolithic Native American artifacts in the American Midwest. In places such as the Cahokia Mounds in Illinois, history is recorded not through words, which are so easily tinged with opinion, but with tangible artifacts of an ancient civilization. Here, those in the present day who wish to record the history of these societies must construct the past objectively by studying the physical evidence. No voices from the ancient world tell us what to think or how exactly to view this civilization. It is only the remains of weapons, pottery, clothing, etc that can help to define the characteristics of this slice of human history. Historians are forced to make conclusions from the data that is present. Thus, ironically, history regains its objectivity because those who lived it are not around to elucidate.
The objectivity of recorded history is contingent upon the relation of those who are doing the recording to the historical events in question. If a party is deeply connected or inherently related to the history being recorded, then it is likely (as was the case with the two versions of military morality in World War II) that objectivity will be sacrificed. Human nature compels those involved to "tell their side" and in doing so, they create records seeped in their own personal beliefs and justifications. However, if a historical event is much removed from the recorder, as is the case with the aforementioned ancient artifacts, then it is more likely that those recording history will do so by objectively examining the remnants of the past. Recorded history, then, is an paradoxical phenomenon in that it can be both objective and subjective at times.
