Furthermore, historians take history and document it with their own values and opinions in mind. Whenever history is documented, there will always be emphasis on specific points over others. This also confirms the fact that reported history will never be exactly what happened. As historians put emphasis on different parts of historic events, they direct peoples’ opinions and the event will not be told as it
One of the glaring statements that has often been made is the possibility of generalizing human rights without taking into consideration the difference in culture, tradition, religion more importantly human nature itself which vary from each one to another. Is it likely that we can achieve human rights which are universal without the existence of a universal culture? Firstly, the idea of human nature indicates both their nature and their source: they are rights that one has simply because one is human and that a right is a special entitlement that one has to something. They are held by all human beings, irrespective of any rights or duties one may or may not have as citizens, workers or members of families, private organizations and so forth. In the language of the 1948, they are universal rights.
Percy argues that having a packaged idea of something can cause you to create a symbolic amalgam of ideas about that thing that can block the true essence of the real experience when you actually do experience it for yourself. In his article he presents examples of how trying to achieve a symbol or expectation leads to the loss of the full experience. Understanding can only be reached through the true experience, but when expectations and unconscious comparisons come into play understanding becomes impossible. In one of Percy’s examples he argues that Garcia Lopez de Cardenas, the man who discovered the Grand Canyon is the only person who is the only one who has truly seen it. I personally have had many experiences where this general rule is true and I found myself comparing instead of observing.
The fact that we do relate these icons to the Holocaust supports Dr. Stier’s definition of a symbol. Stiers’ statement “…we need even more (symbols) in the context of the Holocaust in order to try and discover what the Holocaust means to us in the 21st century” (Stiers), cries out for understanding. Whatever we take away from the representation is important to how we learn and teach our future generations to think and react to such a haunting occurrence. Dr. Stier’s ambition is to have our generation, and generations to follow, not just see a picture or have a memory of the event; he wants us to capture and define the significance of the moment and how we interpret these ideals we have just experienced. While history makes us demand that we keep the symbols, certainly the moral tutorial that we take away that is proof that we have been educated in the rudiments of the injustice that one man inflicted on a whole selection of people (Stier).
Yiddish 3399 Abrar Samad Final Paper How Can One Shape the Direction of Their Memory One of the most critical element in the novel Multidirectional Memory by Philip Rothberg is the fact memory, in most cases is not a situation where a gain in one side entails a corresponding loss to the other side and that if the public pays attention to one historical event, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are forgetting about another historical event (Marcuse). Rothberg says, “….they actually use the presence of widespread holocaust consciousness as a platform to articulate a vision of American racism past and present” (Rothberg, 2). He is trying to articulate how the awareness of the holocaust has increased the attentiveness towards racism. He talks about the potential for different memories to act positively for each other instead of being competitive and different memories in fact can reinforce each other thus eliminating the idea of competition between memories. Rothberg stated that, “recognizing the multidirectionality of memory encourages us to pay close attention to the circulation of historical memories in encounters whose meanings are complex and overdetermined…”(Rothberg, 179).
As Fredric Jameson defined this difference: the historicizing operation can follow two distinct paths, which only ultimately meet in the same place: the path of the object and the path of the subject, the historical origins of the things themselves and that more intangible historicity of the concepts and categories by which we attempt to understand those things.1 The paucity of the available evidence means that the paths identified by Jameson will never meet: conclusions will remain hypothetical, judgments controversial. This does not mean that the enquiry is entirely quixotic or simply arbitrary. It can take its place in the realm of the provisional and the relatively persuasive which is the familiar home of literature, theory and politics. It is obliged to live with an old anxiety about authentic knowledge and preserve a decent reticence about imposing on the past anachronistic values of the present. Such concerns are especially potent when one is negotiating the ancient classics, a field which until recently was the preserve of a special clerisy.
History - a record theoretically founded on evidence - a record of facts, data and statistics - a process of evaluation and reflection - verifiable therefore reliable - official, rational and non- personal - conservative and informative - characterised by a systematic and organised structure - objective and unbiased Memory - the mental capacity of retaining, reviving or recalling impressions, precious experiences - fragile and often biased - personal rather than factual - vulnerable to forgetfulness over time - a mere snapshot of time - often incomplete, fallible or distorted - fragmented, full of gaps and without any chronological order - often triggered by personal emotions, associations and sensory stimulus- unlike archival material - represented by icons and mementos of the past such as photographs and artefacts indicative of other times, places of the past. - subjective, biased and subject to prejudice Objectivity versus subjectivity - history: Latin meaning story - traditionally viewed as a sequential series of indisputable events, held in high esteem as being a factual account of past occurrences. - authentic because it is a process involving academic evaluation and reflection - use to view memory as unreliable and therefore unworthy of being an alternative discourse to history. - history can mean different things to different people - as history itself attests, any interpretation of past events has the potential to vary due to the examiners personal and cultural prejudices, interests, and academic rationality. - analysis is often interpretive and as such is subjective in nature and therefore problematic.
The representation of truth in the interplay between history and memory can be seen in different ways. Mark Baker’s non-fiction text, the fiftieth gate shows how history and memory can play a vital part in discovering truth. As well as this, the Sydney Jewish Museum serves as an interactive text that evokes a deep sense of history and memory in a nostalgic and mournful manner, unlike Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Blind Assassin’ which investigates history and memory retrospectively. The ‘truth’ is represented in The Fiftieth Gate through the use of both history and memory to construct the picture of the past. Baker, in trying to discover the truth of his parent’s past, gathers history as the basis for his knowledge of past situations.
Because myths are linked historically not just to literature, but also to the experience of the sacred, their use has the effect turning an experience sacrosanct (Clasby xi). The two texts, Wild Thorns and Waltz with Bashir: A Lebanon War Story are imbued with various myths, of heroism and martyrdom, nation and national identity, and the motherland and revolution. Though the myths in the story are born out of a historical and political necessity to create a unified community, the same myths are also far removed from the lived experience, often alienating characters instead, and limiting the exploration of different possibilities and interpretations of history and nation. Myths, as the chosen form of communication of “prophets, poets and rebels” (Clasby xv), offer a symbolic language for articulating experience that can be used as a narrative of the experience of a people. In the light of the fact that many scholars see “modern consciousness” as a fall grace (Clasby 1), myths elevate the ordinary experience to the sacred (Clasby xi).
In the first of the essay it will be made clear that historians can objective only to a limited extent as they lean more towards being subjective. Yes objectivity exists but is very limited due to various factors such as personal prejudice, personal motives, among others. On the other hand the essay will argue that historians can be objective due to factors such as fact are facts, truth is discovered not invented. The ultimate goal of this essay to make it clear that historians are objective to a limited extent. The second part of the essay will discuss the relevance of the knowledge of subjectivity and objectivity to an ‘O’ level history teacher to show that it is highly relevant.