Knowledge Questions

1. Is certainty about the past more difficult to attain than certainty about the present or the
future?
2. How might the existence of different historical perspectives be beneficial to historical
knowledge?
3. Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material?
4. Should terms such as “atrocity” or “hero” be used when writing about history, or should value
judgments be avoided?

Is certainty about the past more difficult to attain than certainty about the
present or the future?
1. Eason:

Attaining certainty about the past is arguably more difficult than certainty about the present or the
future. Here's why, with a specific example from Barbara Tuchman's "Practicing History":

The Difficulty of Past Certainty:

Incomplete Evidence: Historical knowledge relies heavily on evidence that has survived the passage of
time. Documents, artifacts, and even oral histories can be incomplete, biased, or lost altogether. This
creates gaps and ambiguities that make it difficult to reconstruct events with absolute certainty.

Example from "Practicing History":

Tuchman's essay, "Sir Edward Grey Capsizes a Continent," analyzes the events leading up to World War
I. She meticulously examines diplomatic documents and letters various European leaders involved.
Despite this wealth of evidence, Tuchman acknowledges the limitations of historical knowledge. For
instance, she discusses the "elusiveness of motive," where leaders' true intentions behind decisions
remain unclear due to selective record-keeping or self-justification. With this example in mind, unlike
the present where we can directly observe events, the past is open to interpretation. Different
individuals and groups involved in historical events will have their own perspectives, shaped by their
experiences and agendas. Historians must look through these varied accounts to create a
comprehensive picture.

2. Ture:

Certainty about the past can be challenging due to several factors: Historical events are often
interpreted differently by historians based on their perspectives and the available evidence. This
subjectivity introduces ambiguity and challenges the notion of absolute certainty. The past is constantly
being reevaluated as new evidence emerges, or societal perspectives evolve. This complicates the quest
for certainty. Additionally, our understanding of the past relies heavily on memory, which may be fallible
and subject to biases. The present is constantly evolving, with numerous interconnected variables at
play, and despite the abundance of information available in the present, there may still be gaps or
misinformation, leading to uncertainties. This complexity can hinder efforts to achieve absolute
certainty. In the case of a historical crime scene, certainty about the past is inherently challenging due to
the passage of time and the limitations of available evidence. Historical records, eyewitness accounts,
and physical evidence may be incomplete, contradictory, or subject to biases and interpretation.
Investigators must rely on forensic techniques, historical research, and critical analysis to reconstruct the
events accurately, but absolute certainty may remain elusive.

3. Colin:

4. Alex:

I beg to differ. In fact, I believe that certainty can be more easily attained through the study of history.

Many disputed arguments, such as the characterization of the Nanking Massacre as suggested by
Nicolas’ reporting on the New York Times, are still relatively novel topics that require much more
research and debate; The reason there are disputes surrounding the exact numbers of the deaths
incurred by the Japanese occupation of China, which the Chinese government claims as much as 35
million people being massacred while other claimed 10 million casualties was not due to any logistical
difficulty of historical research – but rather there are interests and ties that were connected to this
historical incident. For example, the Chinese government insists that it is an ‘undeniable set of war
crimes purposely committed by Imperialist Japan during the Second World War,’ while the Japanese
government defended itself by claiming that “such a thing as so-called Nanjing Massacre is unlikely to
have taken place.” This echos modern disputes in geopolitics such as the territorial allocation in the
South China Sea. It is not due to the lack of international laws and historical proof of fishermen activities
that created the dispute, but rather the premeditated, irreconcilable interests at play that hindered the
progress towards certainty. Therefore, I would argue that it is not historical certainty itself that is hard to
attain – but rather our biases and egoistic interests as humans that transcend the past, present, and
future that created such ambiguities.

5. Cathrin:
6. Gilad:
7. Eason:

Learning from Uncertainty:

The quest for historical certainty, though challenging, is still valuable. By acknowledging the limitations
of evidence and perspective, historians can:

Develop Critical Thinking Skills: Historians must analyze sources, identify bias, and weigh conflicting
narratives. This process promotes critical thinking, a crucial skill for navigating complex information in
any field.

Gain a Richer Understanding of the Past: By considering multiple viewpoints, historians can create a
more nuanced picture of historical events that goes beyond simple "facts". This understanding allows us
to learn valuable lessons about human behavior and the forces that shape societies.

Tuchman exemplifies this approach in "Sir Edward Grey Capsizes a Continent". She doesn't shy away
from the ambiguities in the historical record. Instead, she presents Grey's decision-making process as
influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including miscalculations, national pride, and a desire to
preserve peace. This nuanced approach provides a richer understanding of the descent into war than a
simplistic good vs. evil narrative.

8. Ture:

Attaining certainty about the present is generally more feasible due to immediate access to evidence
and witnesses. While challenges such as false testimony or tampered evidence still exist, the immediacy
of the investigation typically allows for a clearer understanding of the events.

Certainty about the future is inherently uncertain due to its speculative nature. Future events are
influenced by numerous unpredictable factors, making precise certainty impossible. While we can make
educated guesses and prediction about the future based on patterns and trends, there’s always a degree
of uncertainty and probability involved. Additionally, human actions and decisions introduce an element
of unpredictability, further complicating efforts to predict the future with certainty. While certainty
about the past may seem more difficult to attain due to its reliance on memory, interpretation, and
historical records, certainty about the present and the future also pose significant challenges. Each
temporal domain presents its own set of complexities and limitations, highlighting the nuanced nature
of certainty across different timeframes.

9. Colin:
10. Alex:

Elaborating on what I’ve said before, it is worth noting that similar historical events that took place
around the same period (World War II) – the fall of the Weimar Republic, the atrocities committed in
Auschwitz are all well documented pieces of history that are rarely doubted, characterized as the
“terrible acts of inhumanity and destruction” by the United Nations. The reason for such certainty is
because the people who represent the interests of the Nazis were being punished and eliminated,
allowing for impartial, objective historical research to truly take place. Documents could be burnt,
records can be redacted, but the death camps still stand, and the witnesses of atrocities continue to
voice their narrative of the history. It is through oral history and verification of on-site evidence that
allowed for the rediscovery and consensus-building of historical facts.

11. Cathrin:
12. Gilad:

How might the existence of different historical perspectives be beneficial to

historical knowledge?
1. Eason:

Diverse Perspectives Enrich Historical Understanding

Comprehensive Analysis: Traditional histories often focus on military or political narratives, as seen in
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's emphasis on military affairs. By integrating perspectives that highlight
economic, social, and cultural dimensions—areas often overlooked in chronicles—we gain a fuller
picture of historical epochs. For example, considering the economic strategies and social structures of
Alfred’s Wessex alongside military achievements provides insights into how economic and social factors
contributed to military success against Viking invaders.

Promoting Empathy and Understanding: Exposure to diverse historical perspectives fosters empathy and
a deeper appreciation for the lived experiences of people across different times and cultures. By
examining the socio-economic conditions that underpin historical events, like the agricultural
developments in Wessex, we gain insight into the everyday lives of people, not just the elite or warriors.
This broadens our historical understanding to include the experiences of those often marginalized in
traditional narratives.

Real-World Example: The differing interpretations of Alfred the Great’s triumph over the Vikings
exemplify the benefits of diverse historical perspectives. A military-focused narrative might highlight
Alfred's tactical genius, while an economic and social analysis could attribute his success to the
advanced socio-economic structures of Wessex. This multifaceted approach enriches our understanding
by illuminating the various factors contributing to historical outcomes, challenging us to consider the
interplay between military prowess, economic stability, and social cohesion.

2. Ture:

The existence of different historical perspectives is profoundly beneficial to historical knowledge for
several reasons. Alternative perspectives offer insights into the diverse experiences, beliefs, and values
of people from various backgrounds. This fosters empathy and understanding, enabling historians to
appreciate the complexity of human experiences across time and space. It also facilitates the recognition
of shared humanity despite cultural or ideological differences. Acknowledging the existence of different
perspectives highlights the inherent biases and subjectivities present in historical narratives. By
understanding the influences shaping each perspective, historians can critically assess sources and
narratives, discerning between objective facts and subjective interpretations.

Differing perspectives prompt historians to reevaluate established interpretations and narratives. This
process of revisionism is essential for the evolution of historical understanding, as it allows for the
incorporation of new evidence, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks. By challenging conventional
wisdom, revisionism ensures that historical knowledge remains dynamic and responsive to ongoing
scholarship.

3. Colin:
4. Alex:

I agree with Ture’s opinion, and I would like to further this argument by comparing the different
perspectives historians take when they inquire the past, and how it allows them to arrive at different
conclusions. In the late 1980s to 1990s, a wave of democratization took place in various African nations
such as Ghana. However, instead of fostering strong constitutional frameworks like many western liberal
democracies, we see the reemergence of authoritarian rule and dictatorship in nations such as South
Africa with the rise of Jacob Zuma and regional destabilization in Sudan and Mali. For example,
according to historian Mahmood Mamdani, the failure of African democracies is not due to the absence
of strong central control, but rather a result of the lack of constitutional checks and balances. He argues
that the colonial-era policies of indirect rule and ethnic divisions sowed the seeds of interethnic strife,
which continue to destabilize African democracies. However, other historians argue that the tragedy of
Africa's history is that it has been ruled by too many autocrats for too long, and it is inherently difficult
to cultivate democratic institutions in a traditionally authoritarian region. Both arguments root
themselves in historical facts, yet they shed light to different factors that have led to the same
consequences. This allows us to examine history through a comprehensive lens and acknowledge the
complex interplay of factors that contributed to the occurrence of historical events, and avoids us to
draw misleading or incomplete conclusions.

5. Cathrin:
6. Gilad:
7. Eason:

Theoretical Frameworks as Lenses of Interpretation

Shaping Understanding: Every historian's interpretation is influenced by their theoretical framework,

which acts as a lens through which historical events are viewed and understood. This framework is
shaped by the historian's academic background, cultural context, and personal experiences. For
instance, the author’s description of the Viking Age England under Alfred the Great as having a more
advanced economic and social order than the Vikings is a perspective that reflects a broader analysis
than mere military conquests. It offers a view colored by theories on economic development and social
organization.

Relevance to issue: An example of this is the US during the 1950s-1960s .African Americans faced
systemic racism and were denied basic civil rights in many parts of the country. The civil rights
movement, led by figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, mobilized mass protests,
boycotts, and legal challenges to challenge discriminatory laws and practices. By applying diverse
theoretical frameworks to the study of the civil rights movement, historians can analyze the social,
political, and economic factors that fueled racial inequality and oppression. The movement's success in
achieving landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
demonstrates the power of collective action and advocacy in effecting social change.

8. Ture:

I agree with Eason’s points. One real life situation that links to this knowledge question is the Cuban
Missile Crisis of 1962. This crisis was a pivotal moment in the cold war, and involved intense geopolitical
tensions between the US, the Soviet Union, and Cuba. The differing historical perspectives on this event
can offer insights into its complexities and ramifications. From the American perspective, the Cuban
missile crisis if often framed as a triumph of diplomacy and resolve. President JFK’s leadership in
navigating the crisis, coupled with the implementation of a naval blockade and intense diplomatic
negotiations, is credited with averting a potential nuclear catastrophe. From the American perspective
the crisis was a clear instance of Soviet aggression and defense of the western hemisphere. The Soviet
perspective on the crisis differs significantly from the American narrative. Soviet leaders, including
Premier Nikita Khrushchev, viewed the crisis as a response to perceived American provocations, such as
the missiles in Turkey. From the Soviet standpoint, the deployment of missiles in Cuba was seen as a
defensive measure to counterbalance American military superiority and protect Soviet interests. The
Cuban perspective on the crisis offers yet another layer of interpretation. For Cuba, the crisis
represented a pivotal moment in its relationship with the superpowers and its struggle for sovereignty.
Cuban narratives highlight the perceived betrayal by the Soviet Union, which withdrew its missiles
without consulting Cuban leaders, leaving Cuba vulnerable to American aggression. The crisis reinforced
Cuba’s commitment to revolutionary ideals and strengthened its resolve to resist American imperialism.
By examining the crisis through these different historical perspectives, we gain a richer understanding of
the complexities involved. Each perspective sheds light on the motivations, fears, and actions of the key
players. This example underscores the importance of considering multiple perspectives in historical
analysis to arrive at a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the past.

9. Colin:
10. Alex:
11. Cathrin:
12. Gilad:

Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material?
1. Eason:

Nature of Objectivity: Objectivity in history is an aspirational goal rather than an attainable state. John
Lewis Gaddis' reflections in "The Landscape of History" underscore the inherent subjectivity in historical
interpretation. He posits that while achieving complete objectivity may be a tough task, striving for it
guides historians toward more rigorous and balanced analyses. This pursuit is akin to scientific
endeavors, where objectivity is sought through systematic and methodical approaches despite the
understanding that all observations are ultimately filtered through human perception.

One real-world example that illustrates the importance of evidence and its interpretation in shaping
historical narratives is the study of the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912. This maritime disaster, in
which the "unsinkable" ship struck an iceberg and sank on its maiden voyage, has captured the public
imagination for over a century. Historians and researchers have relied on a variety of evidence, including
survivor testimonies, official inquiries, shipwreck artifacts, and scientific analyses, to reconstruct the
events leading up to the Titanic's demise. The interpretation of this evidence has evolved over time,
with different theories proposed to explain the causes of the disaster, the response of the crew and
passengers, and the lessons learned from the tragedy. However, the interpretation of this evidence can
be influenced by the historian's theoretical framework and subjective judgment. Some historians may
emphasize the role of class divisions and inadequate safety measures in contributing to the disaster,
while others may focus on the technological advancements and regulatory changes that followed in its
aftermath.

2. Ture:

I agree with Eason’s points. Adding on, historians like all individuals, bring their own perspectives,
beliefs, and experiences to their work. This inherent subjectivity can influence their selection of sources,
the framing of research questions, and the interpretation of historical material. Historians must select
which sources to include in their research, and this process can be influenced by conscious or
unconscious biases. For example, they may unconsciously favor interpretations that align with their
preconceived notions or challenge interpretations that contradict their beliefs. The broader
historiographical context in which historians operate can also shape their biases. Certain historical
perspectives or schools of thought may dominate the field, leading historians to adopt particular
frameworks or interpretations. One scenario related to this is the historiography of the American Civil
War. Historians have examined the war from various perspectives, and their interpretations have
evolved over time. Historians may choose to focus on specific aspects of the war based on their personal
interests or ideological leanings. For example, some may prioritize military history, while others may
emphasize social or economic factors. Additionally, interpretations of the war can by shaped by
ideological, cultural, and regional, biases. For instance, interpretations of states’ rights versus slavery as
the primary cause of the war have been deeply influenced by historians' own perspectives and societal
contexts. A similair topic came up when the New York Times was writing their book on slavery, 1619,
where even after consulting a historian about claims that they made, and found out they were wrong,
they still included them in the book.

3. Colin:
4. Alex:

I agree with the points raised before, and I would like to share my experience reading John Lewis Gaddis’
work to provide more context as to how unconscious bias and perspectives can influence our
comprehension of the past. As a prominent American historian, he has extensively studied and written
about the Cold War, and his works often strive to reflect on the complex interplay of ideology, security,
and power during this period. However, it is without doubt that the lens of an American scholar
influences his selection and interpretation of events. In his argumentation of the cold war, he uses
extremely judgmental phrases such as “the Berlin wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of
the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, and on the other side of the wall,
capitalism was succeeding.” While those arguments do not negate the contribution Gaddis has made to
the study of the history of the Cold War, when addressing the question of whether historians can be free
of bias in the selection and interpretation of material, it's important to consider that every historian
brings their own perspective to their work. This perspective is informed by their background, the time in
which they live, and their own beliefs and values. Therefore, while historians like Gaddis strive for
objectivity and rigor in their work, we must acknowledge that some level of bias in the selection and
interpretation of material is inevitable. The goal, then, is not to eliminate bias entirely but to be aware
of it and to critically engage with sources and interpretations to provide a well-rounded understanding
of the past.

5. Cathrin:
6. Gilad:
7. Eason:

Critical Engagement with Evidence: Gaddis presents a model for historical scholarship that emphasizes
critical engagement with evidence. By advocating for a scientific approach to history, he suggests that
historians should adopt principles of experimentation, hypothesis testing, and replication. This model
encourages historians to rigorously scrutinize their sources, challenge their assumptions, and consider
alternative interpretations, thereby mitigating the influence of their biases.

Transparency and Acknowledgment of Subjectivity: One pathway toward greater objectivity is through
the explicit acknowledgment of the inherent subjectivity in historical analysis. Gaddis' work, by
discussing the challenges of postmodern skepticism and the parallels between history and science,
serves as an example of this transparency. By openly addressing the process of selecting and
interpreting evidence, historians can foster a more critical and self-aware discourse that values the
interrogation of bias as much as the pursuit of truth.
 8. Ture:

I agree with the points previously made. Adding on, historians often strive for objectivity in their
interpretations, aiming to present accurate and impartial account of the past. However, it's essential to
recognize that complete objectivity may be unattainable due to the subjective nature of historical
inquiry. Personal bias, stemming from individual experiences, values, and ideological views, can shape
historians’ selection and interpretation of historical material. For example, a historian with a particular
political or religious affiliation may approach their research with certain preconceptions or biases that
influence their conclusions. One personal experience that I have that relates to this is when I was
researching my family history. As I was gathering information about my family’s past, I had to decide
which sources to prioritize and include in my research. I was also tempted to focus more on stories or
documents that aligned with my idealized image of my family, overlooking or downplaying aspects that
are less flattering or conflict with this image.

9. Colin:
10. Alex:
11. Cathrin:
12. Gilad:
Should terms such as “atrocity” or “hero” be used when writing about history,
or should value judgments be avoided?
1. Eason:

The excerpt from Nicholas D. Kristof's "Japan's Plans for Museum on World War II Mired in Dispute"
perfectly illustrates the complexities of using terms like "atrocity" when writing about history. The
Japanese government's initial attempts to downplay war crimes by omitting exhibits on the Nanjing
Massacre highlight a common issue. Governments often use museums to portray their role in wars in a
more positive light, shying away from labeling their actions as atrocities. This distorts history and hinders
understanding. The article mentions veterans' groups wanting a museum to honor the war dead. While
atrocities were committed, these veterans likely view themselves as serving their country. Using
"atrocity" might be seen as disrespectful to their sacrifices. Nuance is needed to acknowledge both the
human cost of war and the experiences of those involved.

2. Ture:

I agree with Eason’s points. Adding on, terms such as “atrocity” and “hero” carry inherent value
judgements, reflecting moral or ethical assessments of historical actors or events. Historians must
recognize that value judgements are subjective and can vary based on cultural, political, and ideological
perspectives. The use of value-laden terms in historical writing can introduce bias, as historians may
inadvertently impose their own moral or ethical viewpoints onto the past. This bias can shape
interpretations of historical events and individuals, potentially distorting or oversimplifying complex
historical realities. The appropriateness of using terms such as “atrocity” or “hero” depends on the
context and purpose of the historical narrative. In some cases, such terms may be justified if they
accurately reflect the magnitude of certain events or the exceptional actions of individuals within their
historical context. Some historians advocate for avoiding value judgements altogether in favor of more
descriptive or neutral language when writing about history. This approach seeks to maintain objectivity
and allow readers to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence presented, rather than imposing
preconceived moral or ethical interpretations.

3. Colin:
4. Alex:

I believe that any attempt that assigning absolute qualities to a historical event is dangerous as it hinders
the very goal of objectivity when conducting historical research. This is particularly evident when
examining the French Revolution. Initially, some historians saw it as a sudden and radical departure
from the past, representing progress and the triumph of enlightenment ideals. However, this
perspective fails to acknowledge the complexity of the Revolution. While it did lead to the establishment
of democratic principles and the end of feudal privileges, it also resulted in the Reign of Terror and the
rise of Napoleon's autocracy. By labeling the Revolution as solely positive, historians risk
oversimplification and ignoring its negative consequences. Additionally, our perception of the French
Revolution has evolved over time. In the 19th century, it was celebrated as a victory for liberty and
equality. However, later historians such as François Furet argued that the Revolution opened the door
for totalitarian regimes in the 20th century by introducing the concept of political violence in the name
of the greater good. Hence, assigning absolute qualities to historical events is by itself limited because it
promotes a one-dimensional view of complex occurrences and discourages critical analysis and
understanding of the multifaceted nature of history. Therefore, historians must recognize their own
biases and strive to present a balanced interpretation of the past.

5. Cathrin:
6. Gilad:
7. Eason:

Finding Balance:

Benefits of Using "Atrocity":

Moral Clarity: Labeling acts like the Nanjing Massacre as atrocities forces an acknowledgement of the
immense suffering inflicted. This prevents historical revisionism and ensures these events are not
whitewashed. By acknowledging atrocities, societies can confront their dark chapters and work towards
preventing similar occurrences. The museum debate highlights the importance of learning from the past
to avoid repeating its mistakes. A good historical account should not shy away from using terms like
"atrocity" when describing well-documented war crimes. However, it should also:

Provide Context, Show Multiple Perspectives: Include accounts from victims, perpetrators, and
bystanders. This fosters empathy and understanding of the complexities of war.

Focus on Learning: Use the discussion of atrocities as a springboard for discussions about war and peace,
The ideal Japanese WWII museum would acknowledge the atrocities committed by its military while also
honoring the sacrifices of its soldiers. Exhibits on the Nanjing Massacre and other war crimes should be
central, not omitted. Additionally, exhibits could explore the reasons for Japan's expansionism, the
decisions of its leaders, and the impact of war on civilians across Asia.

8. Ture:
9. Colin:
10. Alex:
11. Cathrin:
12. Gilad: