As promised: the article from The Crimson White on campus history and the men some buildings were named for...
Find that article, called "Building Names Reflect Different Era on Campus" here:
The response suggests that "History is history--and news should be objective." In fact that's it's title. Read it here:
What do you think about the call for an "objective" view of "history?" I'm wondering about the invocation of something called "the past" (when does such a thing begin and end? at what point do we start drawing boundaries around it, etc?), and our relationship to it as people separated by time and context but with a shared region...
Wanna go visit the Gorgas rock next class?
It is a hard question to ask whether there is an objective view of history, because I would like to think there can be, but at the same time it seems as though it cannot be so. Everyone brings their own experiences and beliefs on society, religion, etc. and so it would seem as though there is never a truly objective view on anything, because it seems as though even "just the facts" could lead to subjective nature. Such as, the facts you include vs. the facts you exclude, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting concept or idea to ask when does the past start to exist, when is it something to look back on and learn something from? How soon is too soon? I dont think there will ever be a good answer for that and it all depends on the case or event.
I am currently in rehearsal for "An Enemy of the People" and i feel it ties right into this topic in certain veins. The lead character has found out soemthing about the towns main source of income that is healththreatening but the majority of the town sides with his sister, the mayor, and thinks that he is making it up and doesnt want to change anything, even if it will help the town. It shows the power one or few people can have on an entire community and how what they say and how they interpret and include to the masses can sway someone or a group one way or another. The mayor seems to be giving an objective argument of facts such as cost and what is wrong, and yet she is only including these facts in order to sway the general public. I think it would be a good thing to see and discuss in class, but then again i am biased by being in the theatre department and being a part of the production. (Also "Screwtape" opens monday and is based on The screwtape letters and as you may or may not know is about demons and good and evil. interesting?)
I don't think it's possible to state definitively when a moment in time becomes "the past." Like most of the things we've talked about it all depends on point of view, situation, etc.
ReplyDeleteFurther, objectivity in history is only possible to a point. A person can present known facts and give some semblance of setting, but even then true objectivity is thin.
FIrst of all...YES! We should totally go and visit the Gorgas Rock next class if we have time. Talk about some interesting rhetoric of the 'past,' no?
ReplyDeleteThis idea of 'objectivity' in history is an interesting conundrum to me. No matter what lens you analyze from, be it a time, place, or idea (like mythology or literature), it comes with its own plethora of directives; where in the crap are you supposed to invoke a starting point? It makes me think of the 'lenticular logic' that MacPherson was talking about in Reconstructing Dixie, and the 3D card depicting Scarlett and Mammy.
History, with all its facets, is like a gigantic spherical 3D montage--What you see depends not only on where you stand, but also how you WANT to turn the ball. What starting point would you pick, if that sphere was in your hands? Objectivity? That seems hard to know...
Granted, one can always say "this or that definitely happened," and it might be a historical fact. It did occur, so it's history. But It seems like the LENS will always carry aspects of personal preference, at least in the sense of how to look at something--even if that something is as broad as the term 'history.'
I try to leave the past in the past at most by avoiding it unless I am confronted w/ it & have to watch/speak on it. As far as the buildings here on campus, I had some idea of who they were named after. Like I said, I just rather not even read about it, because unfortunately it is still unsettling and uncomfortable for me. I'd rather see the University as it is now, although not all perfect & polished, without think or bringing up the past, the names on the buildings, etc. As far as objectivity goes,.....I agree w/ Reagan that some facts are included & some excluded. I don't want to go as far to say that there is no such thing as objectivity. When speaking of objectivity, I often refer the saying......There is always three sides to a story; your side, my side, & the truth.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it Is impossible to have an objective view of history,. The past is always in transition to a different present. I guess it is important, however, to TRY and separate yourself from the context for research and historical purposes
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emma.
ReplyDeleteOne, there's no way that anyone can be objective. I've been around the REL group enough to have that ingrained in my mind.
Yes, different things have happened, but they were all recorded by different people who have different biases. I love history. However, we never get the whole truth. As "they" say, "History is written by the winners."