History Book Bias: How History Books Tell The Truth
History: History Book Bias
University Writing Instructor: Richard Baker Brandon University Hongbo Sun 101289 July 24, 2011
Abstract This research paper discusses the history books tell the truth, meaning the actual what, when, where, why, how, and who of a past event is biased. People always put their own biases in every aspect of collecting data and presenting it. History books are unable to tell the truth because they are usually connected with a philosophical explanation of why an event happened. This paper run though the various factors involved in the writing of a history book and tell the history book can not tell truth.
Introduction …show more content…
“Everyone has the right to his opinion.
A person has also the right to be wrong. But a textbook has no right to be wrong; or to evade the truth, falsity history, or insult and malign a whole race of people. That is what the textbook do” (Henry, 1970) It is different to write a general book and a history book. A general book can be fiction, but a history book must tell the truth. The question is, can history book really tell the truth? The answer is no. It is no such thing as an unbiased book. Every communication expresses the views of individuals making them. In the case of books, those views are fixed in aspic for all who dip at any time in the future into that particular confection. (Klein, 2002) Every one has a unique viewpoint which he subconsciously brings to bear on all incoming sensory material; totally objectivity is just not possible for anyone. History book are inherently biased because of the personal influence and interpretation of historians. Historians put their own biases in every aspect of collecting data and presenting it. All of the material would be part fact, part inference, part judgment, and part
opinion.
History Book Issues In the summer of 1982, the Chinese and South Korean governments lodged diplomatic protests with the Japanese government over the content of newly published high school history textbooks. The accusation was that the Japanese Education Ministry was attempting to play down the brutal behavior of Japanese troops during World War II by omitting details or by softening the language. The Chinese government alleged that, during the textbook screening process, the Education Ministry had doctored the original textbook manuscripts by forcing textbook writers to change certain words or phrases so that the facts were presented in a different light. Consciously or not, textbooks justify and rationalize the political practices. (Rose, 1999) Both China and Korea lodged vociferous complaints against Japan regarding the textbook description of Japanese pre-war and wartime activities in their countries, charging that the Japanese government had intentionally altered historical facts. China, for example, contended that when the Japanese education ministry suggested changing the wording of a passage such as “Japanese forces invade North China” to read “Japanese forces advance into North China”, this charge was tantamount to slander. China demanded immediate corrections. At first, the Japanese minister of Education angrily rejected the Chinese and Korean demands on the grounds that the accrual content of the textbook was entirely a matter of domestic concern, and that the historical facts might be interpreted differently from different perspectives. (Kim, 1983)
The Development of Bias According to Webster’ Third New International Dictionary (1976), history is “A systematic written account comprising a chronological record of events (as affecting a city, state, nation, institution, science, or art) and usually including a philosophical explanation of the cause and origin of such events”. The notion that history book tell the truth, meaning the actual what, when, where, why, how and who of the past event. (Shapiro, 2007) Shapiro (2007) explained that “A history book requires a philosophical explanation of causes to qualify as a history book. And one’s philosophy is shaped by his leaning, biases, and prejudices.” When a historian decides to write an event, he has been thinking about the event as the subject of a book for some time. The historian is not consciously aware of this, but he has already reached several conclusions of that event, he is already biased in the way of sees the event. Also the historian is already is already close-minded about several aspects of what take place. Because the historian is a human, bias, preconception, and preconditioning are built into his mental apparatus. So, he bias when he states of mind. After that, the historian will do a great deal of reading about the event and discussed with colleagues. The historian is also not consciously aware of the slight feeling of annoyance or irritation when something in his reading or in his conversations about the event did not square with what he thought was the what, when, why, how, who, of the event. The historian had long age deluded himself that because he is a scholar, a professor, an individual. He is totally objective about virtually all manner of things historical. But given that everyone has a unique viewpoint which the historian subconsciously brings to bear on all incoming sensory material, total objectivity is just not possible for anyone. Shapiro (2007) also states that “All research material is suspect. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable; noneyewitness accounts are based upon unreliable eyewitness accounts (or are even sheer fabrications).” Eyewitness accounts are not reliable because they always tend to be embroidered descriptions of what was actually seen and heard. Eyewitnesses see only the trees not the forest. So, there are gaps in information. On the other hand, eyewitnesses can not witness every aspect and every detail of any event. For example, no one could possibly have witnessed every detail of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. To have done so, the eyewitness would have had to have been everywhere at the same time; he would have had to have been an eyewitness to all planning; he would have had to have been able to see and hear through roofs, walls, and floors. These are all impossible. Also, they can not differentiate between the things that they actually sees and the things that he only imagined he sees because of the stress he is under at that time. So, Shapiro (2007) said that “Although eyewitness accounts have same value to a historian, they can not be relied upon to tell what, when, where, why, how, and who of any event.” The material compiled by people who had not been eyewitnesses to the event can not be used in determining the what, when, where, why, how, and who of the event. Because that kind of material has to be based on material put together by people who had been there, but that material is unreliable. All of historian’s research material would have several characteristics in common, because it exists only in worlds of words. It would be nothing more than a lot of symbols because it would all be couched in one or more languages. Some of the words would be concrete like boats, airplanes. Being realm their referent could be verified. The rest would be abstract word, opinions, inferences and words intended to represent intangible characteristics. The historian will have to validate or invalidate every on of them solely on the basis of his own judgments, attitudes, and belief system. So, it is no possible to be objectivity. Can historians differentiate between fact and factoid? They can not. Because a fact is nothing more than a common belief, held, or subscribed to, by a number of people, there is not way to differentiate between a fact and a factoid. (Shapiro, 2007)
Conclusion
The truth, where history is concerned, means the actual what, when, where, why, how, and who of a past event. It is unknowable. The historians are prone to all manner of fallacies in his work because of their own biases and the biases of others, unreliable research material, and their judgments. History book are inherently biased. Therefore, it is not possible to write a history book that tells the truth about any past event.
Reference
Gove, P. (1976). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, Mass: G. & C. Merriam Company.
Henry, J. (1970). Textbooks and the America Indian. The United States of America: Indian Historian Press.
Kim, P. (1983). Japan’s bureaucratic decision-making on the textbook. Public Administration, 61, 283-294.
Klein, G. (2002). Reading into racism. Taylor & Francis E-Library. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://blementi.brandonu.ca:80/login?url=http://www.myilibrary.com?id=32897
Rose, C. (1999). The textbook issue: Domestic sources of Japan’s foreign policy. Japan forum, 11, 205-216.
Shapiro, I. (2007). The history con. A review of general semantics, 64(2), 165-171.
University Writing Instructor: Richard Baker Brandon University Hongbo Sun 101289 July 24, 2011
Abstract This research paper discusses the history books tell the truth, meaning the actual what, when, where, why, how, and who of a past event is biased. People always put their own biases in every aspect of collecting data and presenting it. History books are unable to tell the truth because they are usually connected with a philosophical explanation of why an event happened. This paper run though the various factors involved in the writing of a history book and tell the history book can not tell truth.
Introduction …show more content…
“Everyone has the right to his opinion.
A person has also the right to be wrong. But a textbook has no right to be wrong; or to evade the truth, falsity history, or insult and malign a whole race of people. That is what the textbook do” (Henry, 1970) It is different to write a general book and a history book. A general book can be fiction, but a history book must tell the truth. The question is, can history book really tell the truth? The answer is no. It is no such thing as an unbiased book. Every communication expresses the views of individuals making them. In the case of books, those views are fixed in aspic for all who dip at any time in the future into that particular confection. (Klein, 2002) Every one has a unique viewpoint which he subconsciously brings to bear on all incoming sensory material; totally objectivity is just not possible for anyone. History book are inherently biased because of the personal influence and interpretation of historians. Historians put their own biases in every aspect of collecting data and presenting it. All of the material would be part fact, part inference, part judgment, and part
opinion.
History Book Issues In the summer of 1982, the Chinese and South Korean governments lodged diplomatic protests with the Japanese government over the content of newly published high school history textbooks. The accusation was that the Japanese Education Ministry was attempting to play down the brutal behavior of Japanese troops during World War II by omitting details or by softening the language. The Chinese government alleged that, during the textbook screening process, the Education Ministry had doctored the original textbook manuscripts by forcing textbook writers to change certain words or phrases so that the facts were presented in a different light. Consciously or not, textbooks justify and rationalize the political practices. (Rose, 1999) Both China and Korea lodged vociferous complaints against Japan regarding the textbook description of Japanese pre-war and wartime activities in their countries, charging that the Japanese government had intentionally altered historical facts. China, for example, contended that when the Japanese education ministry suggested changing the wording of a passage such as “Japanese forces invade North China” to read “Japanese forces advance into North China”, this charge was tantamount to slander. China demanded immediate corrections. At first, the Japanese minister of Education angrily rejected the Chinese and Korean demands on the grounds that the accrual content of the textbook was entirely a matter of domestic concern, and that the historical facts might be interpreted differently from different perspectives. (Kim, 1983)
The Development of Bias According to Webster’ Third New International Dictionary (1976), history is “A systematic written account comprising a chronological record of events (as affecting a city, state, nation, institution, science, or art) and usually including a philosophical explanation of the cause and origin of such events”. The notion that history book tell the truth, meaning the actual what, when, where, why, how and who of the past event. (Shapiro, 2007) Shapiro (2007) explained that “A history book requires a philosophical explanation of causes to qualify as a history book. And one’s philosophy is shaped by his leaning, biases, and prejudices.” When a historian decides to write an event, he has been thinking about the event as the subject of a book for some time. The historian is not consciously aware of this, but he has already reached several conclusions of that event, he is already biased in the way of sees the event. Also the historian is already is already close-minded about several aspects of what take place. Because the historian is a human, bias, preconception, and preconditioning are built into his mental apparatus. So, he bias when he states of mind. After that, the historian will do a great deal of reading about the event and discussed with colleagues. The historian is also not consciously aware of the slight feeling of annoyance or irritation when something in his reading or in his conversations about the event did not square with what he thought was the what, when, why, how, who, of the event. The historian had long age deluded himself that because he is a scholar, a professor, an individual. He is totally objective about virtually all manner of things historical. But given that everyone has a unique viewpoint which the historian subconsciously brings to bear on all incoming sensory material, total objectivity is just not possible for anyone. Shapiro (2007) also states that “All research material is suspect. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable; noneyewitness accounts are based upon unreliable eyewitness accounts (or are even sheer fabrications).” Eyewitness accounts are not reliable because they always tend to be embroidered descriptions of what was actually seen and heard. Eyewitnesses see only the trees not the forest. So, there are gaps in information. On the other hand, eyewitnesses can not witness every aspect and every detail of any event. For example, no one could possibly have witnessed every detail of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. To have done so, the eyewitness would have had to have been everywhere at the same time; he would have had to have been an eyewitness to all planning; he would have had to have been able to see and hear through roofs, walls, and floors. These are all impossible. Also, they can not differentiate between the things that they actually sees and the things that he only imagined he sees because of the stress he is under at that time. So, Shapiro (2007) said that “Although eyewitness accounts have same value to a historian, they can not be relied upon to tell what, when, where, why, how, and who of any event.” The material compiled by people who had not been eyewitnesses to the event can not be used in determining the what, when, where, why, how, and who of the event. Because that kind of material has to be based on material put together by people who had been there, but that material is unreliable. All of historian’s research material would have several characteristics in common, because it exists only in worlds of words. It would be nothing more than a lot of symbols because it would all be couched in one or more languages. Some of the words would be concrete like boats, airplanes. Being realm their referent could be verified. The rest would be abstract word, opinions, inferences and words intended to represent intangible characteristics. The historian will have to validate or invalidate every on of them solely on the basis of his own judgments, attitudes, and belief system. So, it is no possible to be objectivity. Can historians differentiate between fact and factoid? They can not. Because a fact is nothing more than a common belief, held, or subscribed to, by a number of people, there is not way to differentiate between a fact and a factoid. (Shapiro, 2007)
Conclusion
The truth, where history is concerned, means the actual what, when, where, why, how, and who of a past event. It is unknowable. The historians are prone to all manner of fallacies in his work because of their own biases and the biases of others, unreliable research material, and their judgments. History book are inherently biased. Therefore, it is not possible to write a history book that tells the truth about any past event.
Reference
Gove, P. (1976). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, Mass: G. & C. Merriam Company.
Henry, J. (1970). Textbooks and the America Indian. The United States of America: Indian Historian Press.
Kim, P. (1983). Japan’s bureaucratic decision-making on the textbook. Public Administration, 61, 283-294.
Klein, G. (2002). Reading into racism. Taylor & Francis E-Library. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://blementi.brandonu.ca:80/login?url=http://www.myilibrary.com?id=32897
Rose, C. (1999). The textbook issue: Domestic sources of Japan’s foreign policy. Japan forum, 11, 205-216.
Shapiro, I. (2007). The history con. A review of general semantics, 64(2), 165-171.