Dictionary Definition of History

history

noun ( pl. -ries)

1 the study of past events, particularly in human affairs : medieval European history.

• the past considered as a whole : letters that have changed the course of history.

2 the whole series of past events connected with someone or something : the history of Aegean painting.

• an eventful past : the group has quite a history.

• a past characterized by a particular thing : his family had a history of insanity.

3 a continuous, typically chronological, record of important or public events or of a particular trend or institution : a history of the labor movement.

• a historical play : Shakespeare's comedies, histories, and tragedies.

1. The Trouble with History

In many countries cigarette packets must display a health warning. They may not kill you, but they’ll bring you closer to rather than further from death. There is talk of warnings about the dangers of excessive sugar consumption being added to soda bottles and cans in the US. Increasing levels of obesity, particularly among young people, is pushing health authorities in that direction. On many of the products we use or consume daily we find such warnings. Why not on history too? Through use and misuse history has contributed to much greater loss of human life than cigarettes or sugar ever will. How many conflicts around the world are rooted somewhere in earlier history, are exacerbated by history, or are difficult to resolve because of history? Think of Northern Ireland, the Balkans and, of course, the Middle East.

Consider the following speeches and/or texts from our recent history :

(2002) Tony Blair's foreword to the dossier on Iraq and its WMDs - this document proved pivotal in the decision of Britain to join the US military coalition to attack Iraq to remove its world-threatening WMD capabilities (and Saddam). It was later, after the bodies were piled up, revealed to be utterly without credibility.

(2006) Donald Rumsfeld’s address at the American Legion National Convention

(2006) President Bush’s Address on Fifth Anniversary of 9/11

Given such power, history needs to be understood and handled with some care. It cannot be locked in a safe place well away from children. Rather, everyone should be obliged to read and understand the user’s manual before proceeding. The user’s manual, in turn, is simply a set of questions one poses to oneself for consideration (each question leading to further questions). Consider the following questions that are fundamental to research into and the writing of history:

2. What is a fact?

By dictionary definition[1] a fact is (noun) “a thing that is indisputably the case,” “a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article,” “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.” But, who decides what a fact is? How do we know that a fact is a fact? How can we verify facts? Is there such a thing as a fact at all?

3. What is truth?

By dictionary definition truth is “the quality or state of being true,” and the truth “a fact or belief that is accepted as true.” But, who decides what is true or false? How do we know that something is true? And how can we verify truth and/or falsehood? Is there such a thing as a single truth anyway?

4. How reliable are our sources of history?

As Nakahara writes, “It is acknowledged that history is transmitted to us through things that have been left behind, like oral traditions, folkways, and such, written records, monuments, relics, and remains.[2] But, how do we authenticate sources and understand their meaning? Clearly, to authenticate something we must examine it directly and have some expertise in that area. If not, we are at least one step removed. With secondary sources, we depend on another’s authentication, understanding, and interpretation. How reliable is this? With oral traditions and written evidence, what about language and our own fluency in it? How reliable are translations done by others? What about subtleties or linguistic nuances missed in translation? What about missing pages, the aging of the document, smudges or other marks that make understanding of words or characters in a text difficult? Do we fill in the blanks ourselves? Do we use everything? How can we use everything? (See also 6) below)

5. Is history fiction or nonfiction?

By dictionary definition fiction (noun) is “literature in the form of prose, esp. short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people,” “invention or fabrication as opposed to fact,” “[in sing. ] a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.” Nonfiction (noun), in contrast, is “prose writing that is based on facts, real events, and real people, such as biography or history.” But, have we not already questioned the notion of facts, truths and, by extension, what is and is not “real”? To play Devil’s advocate, if not based on fully self-authenticated facts, truths, real people and events, is history writing not similar to fiction writing? One may not sit down with the express intention of writing a piece of fiction (the intention is probably quite the reverse), but if there is invention and/or fabrication can the final product be nonfiction? Ultimately, does it make any difference?

6. What is left on the cutting room floor?

In movie making, the process of editing together bits of film to construct the final version is called montage. Decisions on which bits get joined, when and how, normally rest with the director. History writing and film-making are similar in this regard, with the historian playing director. The first question to ask, of course, is what goes in and what is left out? Take the case of a documentary film made about the mating rituals of penguins. The film maker will record hundreds of hours of footage over a period of weeks and months, if not longer. But how long is the final documentary? One hour? Less? How is it possible to leave so much out yet still have a viable documentary? In history texts, like in documentaries, decades, or even centuries can be ignored because the writer doesn’t feel that much of interest happened in those periods. But, if you were the director would you make the same omissions?

Ask yourself: If someone were writing a history of your life, is it acceptable to leave out your junior high school education? How about your twenties? In making such omissions would people end up getting a good understanding of your life and who you are?

At the same time, this is an unavoidable constraint for historians attempting to cover a broad area. In trying to cover thousands of years of Okinawa’s history on this course I will necessarily make radical cuts myself. Just bear that in mind. (See also 7) below)

7. Understanding one’s capacity for objectivity?

Although by no means scientific, if you gave 100 people 10 hours of identical film each and asked them (using identical guidelines) to edit it into a 15 minute movie it is probable that you will end up with 100 different movies. We are all different in terms of how we select and view, filter and process, and interpret and relay information. As the director’s vision shapes the movie, so the historian’s vision shapes the text. But does this not create an instant conflict if we are to believe that history is nonfiction and, presumably therefore, (neutral and) objective? Is it possible to square individual subjectivity with the objectivity goal or requirement of history writing (as in item 5) given the dictionary categorization of history is as nonfiction? Does it matter whether we can or not? We should probably at the very least be aware of our objectivity quandary as a place to start.

Recently, the online Wikipedia project has begun to challenge the existing autocratic writing model by offering a democratic way of constructing texts, with multiple authors able to freely add or edit content. However, the value of this form of text construction has been brought into question on several occasions as some content has been shown to be wrong or, in some cases, propaganda. The problem then, is keeping quality control. What is interesting, is that the autocratic process is viewed as better from this perspective, with one or more (co-authored works) person responsible for the quality of the text.

For an interesting discussion on this theme follow this Wall Street Journal link from September 2006.