What IS History?
To The Editor:
A letter in the October 15 issue of the Record makes some very good points, but begins with a very misleading statement, to wit: “history is neither an absolute nor absolutely set. History is fluid and as we learn more about the past the way we view history is subject to change.” These quotations demonstrate a very unfortunate confusion between two very different aspects of the meaning of the word “history.”
The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (10TH edition 2001) gives as its first definition of “history” the following: “a chronological record of significant events often including an explanation of their causes.” Its second definition is “a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events.” Both of these definitions have two parts (a) recording events and (b) explaining them. These are two very different activities. The difference used to be universally recognized by almost all newspapers, which put the record of events reported on the front and succeeding pages, and the explanation or interpretation of events on the opinion pages.
Merriam-Websters Collegiate Thesaurus (1988) gives a list of synonyms for “history,” namely “chronicle, narrative, report, story, version” and a definition “a chronological record of events.” Only the synonym “version” suggests explanation or interpretation.
The essential difference between these functions of recording and explaining has for eons been recognized and considered significant. In the last fifty years, and much more so in the last few decades, this distinction has very much faded, as theprimary role of the news media has changed from informing the public to managing public opinion.
A correct understanding of what really happened in any situation depends both on knowledge and appreciation of the physical evidence, and on explanation and interpretation of what might have or probably happened. Of course, we need to recognize that even the physical evidence is actually not absolute. The measurement and recording is done by humans. Determining what is the physical evidence inevitably involves some judgement and evaluation. The journalists who write the news are humans, too. But there is usually a significant distinction between recording what happened, involving little interpretation, and determining its significance, which can and usually should be substantially influenced by the viewpoints of the people doing it.
One of the really unfortunate common consequences of mixing up the recording and the interpretation of whatever aspect of history we are considering is that the possibility of changing or improving the interpretation is strongly inhibited. This is, of course, why people do it. If I make it difficult for you to separate whatever is recorded from what I tell you about my interpretation, then it is much harder for you to disagree with me.
Perhaps if more of us would put more emphasis on logical thinking, on listening to other viewpoints and on getting along with each other, then making improvements in our society would not be so difficult.
Arnold Romberg
La Grange