Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to be objective in the recording of history. Discuss what you think determines
when objectivity in the recording of history is possible and when it is not.
Objectivity is the way of presenting things in their actual states, without any personal feelings being involved. It is usually maintained when reporting facts or events that happened for sure, without any doubt. However, if proper facts are not collected, personal opinions mingle with the reality of the situation, giving it a subjective approach.
In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective. This is true when the facts related to the event are not very concrete. If the individual knows only one side of the situation, he or she tends to be biased and opinionated when recording the event. For instance,in the history books of India, Britishers are condemned for bringing in the divide and rule policy, thereby causing teh Hindu and Muslim conflicts in an otehrwise peaceful nation. While according to the Britishers, they were ruling an otherwise disgruntled group of people, to avoid them from killing each other.
It might still be possible to be objective in the recording of history. For instance, when we talk about the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, it is known for sure that the attack was made via the planes hijacked by the terrorists from the militant group of al-Qaeda. These are concrete facts with strong evidences and millions of people as witnesses. No one can deny this truth. There are no feelings involved in the facts stated above and hence, it is a completely objective approach to report the situation.
So what determines when objectivity is possible or not while recording history? It completely depends on the goal of reporting the event. If the goal of the event is to state merely the facts, then it is possible to be objective. But if the facts are cloudy then the goal also involves reporting the causes and the after-effects of an event which results in mingling of personal feelings and biases resulting in a subjective report.
Objectivity is the way of presenting things in their actual states, without any personal feelings being involved. It is usually maintained when reporting facts or events that happened for sure, without any doubt. However, if proper facts are not collected, personal opinions mingle with the reality of the situation, giving it a subjective approach.
In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective. This is true when the facts related to the event are not very concrete. If the individual knows only one side of the situation, he or she tends to be biased and opinionated when recording the event. For instance,in the history books of India, Britishers are condemned for bringing in the divide and rule policy, thereby causing teh Hindu and Muslim conflicts in an otehrwise peaceful nation. While according to the Britishers, they were ruling an otherwise disgruntled group of people, to avoid them from killing each other.
It might still be possible to be objective in the recording of history. For instance, when we talk about the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, it is known for sure that the attack was made via the planes hijacked by the terrorists from the militant group of al-Qaeda. These are concrete facts with strong evidences and millions of people as witnesses. No one can deny this truth. There are no feelings involved in the facts stated above and hence, it is a completely objective approach to report the situation.
So what determines when objectivity is possible or not while recording history? It completely depends on the goal of reporting the event. If the goal of the event is to state merely the facts, then it is possible to be objective. But if the facts are cloudy then the goal also involves reporting the causes and the after-effects of an event which results in mingling of personal feelings and biases resulting in a subjective report.
No comments:
Post a Comment