Written by Heera Shetty
As Napoleon once said, ‘‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon? By its very nature, history is always a one-sided account.” Like a coin has two sides to it, so does each story and each event in history.
We need to keep in mind a few things before we open our history books the next time. Historical events, at their very core, are facts that are true. They answer the fundamental question of what, when, and where it happened. But the question of how and why it happened is where things get tricky. You see, whenever someone tells us a story, they also bring their perspective to the table. It’s the same for all the people who wrote scriptures, manuscripts, newspapers, etc.
An apt example of this would be Napoleon’s defeat in 1815. The British take credit for this; however, the Russians beg to differ. Before Napolean was defeated at Waterloo in 1815 by the British, he was first defeated by the Russians in Leipzig in 1813. This earlier defeat happened due to Napoleon’s pride and the Russian’s relentlessness.
Over a year earlier, Napoleon was the official ruler of Europe. When he decided to attack Russia, all hell broke loose. His army went down from 650,000 to less than 100,000. Because of the grueling Winter in Russia, the soldiers couldn’t do their best. The French soon went into retreat, only to be chased all around Europe by salty Russians. To escape the pressure, the Emperor went into exile in Elba, Italy. It was then in 1815 that Britain decided to attack France and defeated Napoleon. While the Brits would say his second defeat was the one that sealed it, the Russians see Waterloo as the unnecessary sequel to their original smackdown.
If you look close enough and do your research well, you’ll find out that for every historical event and every fact, there is always another perspective that can change the way you have been viewing the event. This is where relativism comes into play. Historicism or historical relativism is the theory that there cannot be any objective standard of truth as data interpretation will be affected by subjective factors. These factors are characteristic of either the historian (the person writing the historical source) or the period in which the historian lives. Many factors, such as the historian’s attitude or political, religious, and cultural beliefs, affect the historical piece.
For example, many different versions of Indian history did not acknowledge caste as a differentiating element, arguing that the caste structure served to keep Indians together, despite economic inequalities.
A lot of historians may not explicitly state their political attitudes in their scriptures. However, that doesn’t mean that their perspective doesn’t exist.
Historicism challenges the view that everything is either black or white. There is no complete truth or false; most of what you read in history is biased to some extent. So, the next time you read two conflicting accounts of an event that occurred in the past, remember that it doesn’t necessarily mean that one of them was wrong and the other was right.
If you read about India’s decision to revoke Article 370, a constitutional provision that granted special status for Kashmir’s part controls, divided political opinion in the country, with two completely different perspectives.
History is usually written by the victorious, and their version of the story is biased with hugely exaggerated facts. As time passes, the real version of the story is forgotten, and all that remains is the biased version that starts getting accepted as the truth after a point of time.
An example of this would be the erasure of LGBTQIA+ history. Looking back through history, one might be forgiven for thinking LGBTQ communities didn’t exist before the dawn of the 19th century. Of course, we know that’s false, but if you try to scour through archives or history books, you will find it hard to find an open and honest account of the topic.
Naturally, a lot of people tend to doubt whatever they read. Hence they will tend to reanalyze the facts and documents as new artifacts and information is discovered. This is called Historical Revisionism. One example of this is World War 2. The orthodox view is that Nazi Germany, Hitler, and Imperial Japan were to blame. However, some revisionists believe that America should be blamed as well.
Through historical revisionism, we can look at past events in a new, unbiased light. This is usually done by historians and researchers who are curious to know about the actual sequence of events. It’s essential for maintaining the accuracy of human knowledge. Hence, it also strongly influences history.
Once historians gather enough evidence on a specific matter and suggest respective amendments, they put it up for review by recognized historians and official authorities. If these changes are approved, voila, they become a part of accepted history and are no longer considered by revisionists.
However, some also try to abuse this. There might be sly politicians or deceitful historians who might try to manipulate a piece of history to benefit from it. This is why Historical Revisionism is usually viewed negatively.
A lot of schools also use history textbooks to promote national pride. Their objective of spreading patriotism in the country’s children isn’t wrong as long as they don’t get swayed by a particular ideology. Unfortunately, we tend to see many history textbooks that are more of a medium of propaganda rather than an educational tool.
One instance of how easily history can be manipulated for the sake of a political agenda was Park Chung Hee’s depiction in the state-administered history textbooks. He was a dictator in Korea for more than 18 years. However, the books downplayed his dictatorial regime and abuse of human rights while choosing to shine a light on his industrial and economic developments instead. Apart from this, he was also the father of the President of South Korea. Through their propaganda, the government is quickly trying to manipulate vulnerable students’ minds to who they are, not providing complete information.
Another reason these textbooks misinform so much is that it is easier than dealing with the cold hard facts. For instance, British history textbooks believe that the Kohinoor Diamond was ‘presented’ to Queen Victoria. We all know that it was outright taken from India rather than just being ‘presented to the Queen.’
We forget that we tend to forget that we bring our perspective to the table too. The second we open a book and start reading, our perspective is right there, accompanying us.
Whenever you read anything in history, keep a lookout for the following before you form an opinion:
- The core event or the subject of discussion- Take a few seconds and filter out the sentences which talk about the actual event rather than the author’s own opinions. Look at other written pieces on the same topics and find similarities between them.
- The author and their perspective- Ask questions like- who is the author? Were they biased or impartial? Are they credible sources of information? What significant events shaped their attitudes? No matter how passionately a historian has expressed their opinion, developing the analytical skills to differentiate between fact and opinion is vital.
- The methodology of the author- Were they an intellectual historian or a political one?
- The source used by the author- Find out if the author has relied on original documents or other historians’ works. You can do this by looking at the sources in the preface or introduction. Some may provide a bibliography, if not footnotes or endnotes.
History is not about reporting ‘facts.’ The purpose of history is not to say who was right or wrong; instead, it is to learn from our past mistakes and to improve upon them in the future. Yes, we do learn and gain wisdom from reading only a single account of a historical event. But, from looking at it through multiple perspectives, we are reminded that not all may be as it seems and that it’s worth hearing the other side of the story before we jump to conclusions or form a judgment.
So, the next time you hear or read something, take it with a grain of salt; remember that there’s more than just one side to a story.
Sources & Further Reading:
1) The Da Vinci Code: Important Quotes Explained.
