Topic: The Philosophy of History

[nnnnn]

Is it possible to write history objectively? Is there a 'right' way to write history?

Personally I think that both are impossible because of political and social stigma - for example I think it's true that Hitler came to power in Germany not only due to economic difficulty from recession and the treaty of versailles, but because the german people had faith in a totalitarian leader. However this last factor isn't stressed and sometimes isn't taught in schools because it is politically incorrect. Also until the 1950s british war studies used british estimates for casualties - these would obviously stress that less brits died and more enemies copped it. Because britain won most of these wars these figures would have been taught and accepted as truth even though they were wrong. Also even if only correct facts were stated then people would naturally incline towards a view due to personal interpretation based on their social values. Discuss.

[Aronious]

The right way to write about history is to include only facts and be completely unbiased and without your own opinion. Write what really happened and not what really happened plus my own thoughts.

Also even if only correct facts were stated then people would naturally incline towards a view due to personal interpretation based on their social values.

Not exactly. Not if you write it more like a statistic and less like a book.

[nnnnn]

surely though if someone was raised in a society where massive losses were acceptable, then reading that one side sustained massive losses in winning a war, it would seem like a totally acceptable victory, and not seem barbaric and wasteful

whereas if someone else read the statistics and was raised in a society where any loss of human life was unacceptable, then even if the war was won, that person would not think that the victory was acceptable but instead barbaric and wasteful

examples - iraq war - in UK it seems most people think any loss of life is unacceptable but for example if a martial society had invaded instead of a liberal one then even massive massive casualties to subdue Iraq would be accepted and the war would not seem barbaric and wasteful to the martial population as it does to the liberal population of today - even basic statistics are manipulated by people's minds

[Jarem Asyder]

when studying history, its always interesting to look at the opposing viewpoint of the same thing.

A good example of this is when America was expanding out west and "relocating" the native americans.

in school (the whole of it) the only real thing I learned about it was little big horn and a tiny bit about reservations.

but when I got to college I met a friend who is a native american and grew up on a reservation and wow, he makes it sound like Americans were doing what the nazis did to the jews.

where's the truth, probably somewhere in the middle.

The thing that worries me the most is schools and cultures that rewrite their history or ignore certain aspects of it. I've met people who refuse to acknowledge the holocaust or soviet prison camps, or even skew the events of hte Civil war (but hey, who knows, maybe all those people are actually right...)