Ask HN: Should history be stated objectively?

by digamber_kamat on 9/4/2009, 1:56 PM with 9 comments

Should history be stated objectively or should it be modified to avoid any problems that might occur in the present over past.

For example hypothetically, we should teach our children about racism and slavery in past or should we hide all this from them?

Or should we distort history and say such things happened because of purely economic reasons and nothing like raicism ever existed.

If we tell them the truth the people who were oppressed in past might seek revenge now. That will create unrest.

  • by DanielStraight on 9/4/2009, 2:22 PM

    You're asking two totally different questions here. History should be stated objectively when we know objectively (the U.S. declaration of independence was signed on July 4, 1776) and subjectively when we know subjectively (basically anything involving motivations for actions).

    Whether we should intentionally lie is an entirely separate issue, and honestly, I don't see how any sane, well-intentioned person could propose lying in history classes.

  • by yannis on 9/4/2009, 3:37 PM

    What would you tell your kids about Bush2, Bush1, Vietnam? Korea? Hitler? Stalin? Slavery? The Spaniard Conquest of the America? The Ancient Greeks? Can you hide the truth. Not really and the further you go back the easier it is for the current politicians, educators and parents to let kids see facts clearly rather than through tinted glasses.

    As for the oppressed seeking revenge once they know what happened, you need to teach your kids acceptance of other cultures and to live in harmony with the world (irrespective if you German or Jew, black or white). Cultures take a few centuries to forget (they don't need history)! We also need to teach kids OBJECTIVITY that is what most grown-ups miss!

  • by byoung2 on 9/4/2009, 2:16 PM

    If we tell them the truth the people who were oppressed in past might seek revenge now. That will create unrest.

    If you hide the truth, those same oppressed people will still seek revenge, perhaps even more fervently.

  • by pbhjpbhj on 9/4/2009, 3:23 PM

    Slavery happened for purely economic reasons didn't it? In one systtem the dominant African tribes and other groups rounded people up, they sold them to the (AFAIR) Europeans who were ship owners and traders who took the slaves off to be traded elsewhere, the slave-owners then traded on further or used the slaves to work the land and make profits. Those profits being invested back down the chain to the slave captors in Africa.

    Slave trades established in other areas I expect followed the same modes. The purpose was to make money for those links in the financial chains from those in the iron chains.

    Slaves were also taken from prisoners of war which is probably as much about dominance in government of the lands won as it is about direct financial gain.

    People in Africa, and elsewhere, are still sold into slavery just not as often transported to the West.

    Sorry that was all a bit OT.

  • by cpr on 9/4/2009, 1:59 PM

    "You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

    There's no way to state history objectively, but we can try our best. There's no need to sugar-coat it.