# data[].attributes.headline
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.body
A definite yes. As the famous figure in science fiction Adams famously wrote,  "Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you".
Everyone with an academic mind should confess that biases are, somewhat, inevitable. It's not the point that biases are awfully evil, and particular inclinations from the author are not always bad------sometimes they are great resources for an essential process that people call "compare and contrast." In the historical world, biases resulting from different cultural and social contexts are particularly bounded to happen.
While physicists and chemists get their data from laboratories, most independent researchers heavily rely on primary resources, typically oral history, as evidence. Historical documents or official records are largely twisted and deliberately manufactured by governments or other interested related parties at the time.
Chinese historical studies are a perfect example. No need to mention researchers studying ancient and mystical ancient kings and their dynasties, books published by researchers from different backgrounds discussing The Nanking Massacre,  a controversial incident in 1937, are enough differential for their biases from different cultural contexts. In the 20th century, this incident was depicted very differently by various historians. Many Japanese historians challenged the incident and whether it actually exists(the famous Nanking Massacre Denial), by sourcing data and oral history from the Japanese side and from a Japanese perspective of the war. Again, I'm not saying that those researchers are evil fascists because of their inclinations; their contributions should still be respected and nobody can prove that their conclusions are wrong. Chinese historians also conclude the death tolls from the massacre by interviewing normal Nanjing citizens and survivors, but there are also possibilities that oral history magnified the actual severity.
There was a significant breakthrough when an American independent researcher named Iris Chang published a new book discussing the massacre. It becomes a bestseller because people believe that her studies might be less biased, based on her multi-national cultural background.
There are more examples such as the study of the Falklands War (While Argentinians called it Malvinas).

Herbert

# data[].attributes.headline
If it is difficult to establish proof in history, does that mean that all versions are equally acceptable?

# data[].attributes.subject
If it is difficult to establish proof in history, does that mean that all versions are equally acceptable?

# data[].attributes.body
History, are conclusions based on evidence that has been collected. History can be disputed and is not a universal fact. With this said, some versions of history are more easily disputable than other versions. No human being can be one hundred percent objective, their upbringing, environment, and more shape their ideologies of how they see things, historians are no exception to this fact.

Using the definition of history, as long as all the evidence for a claim has been provided and corresponds with each other, it should be looked at as accurate until proven otherwise. Some can say that perspective can cause history to be inaccurate, and even though it may be true in some cases, if there are two different interpretations of a singular event, which have opposing sides, as long as the underlying message of what happened is the same, then it should generally be acceptable, and that is history, even though the impressions left on the reader might be wrong, it doesn’t change what happened. Hence they are both equally valid.

However in the case of David Irving denying the Holocaust and suggesting that Adolf Hitler helped the Jews escape can be deemed as inaccurate as there is no evidence supporting the claim. Instead, there is evidence and documentation, like Anne Frank’s diary clearly describing the events of the Holocaust.
-Anjie

# data[].attributes.body
Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material?

I don’t think that a historian can truly be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material because we are all biased in one way or another. Whether that may be a confirmation bias or authoritative bias, we all have a bias. The same can be said for historians because they are also human beings. It is never easy for historians to document history without adding their own perspective, therefore, making the information they have subjective to the way they choose to interpret it.

A good example of a historian whose bias had an effect on the work he published was David Irving, who wrote about the military and political history of World War II. David Irving denied the Holocaust by claiming that Hitler was not aware of the persecution of the Jews, and if he was, he opposed it. David Irving misinterpreted historical information to promote further what he believed, which was Holocaust denial. He believed in the works of Ernst Zundel, and that had an influence on the work that he published.

David Irving had a bias towards the events of World War II, and it influenced how he portrayed his message.

David Irving was not able to separate his own personal beliefs from the truth, and that had an effect on the work he published. And because of that, he interpreted his information along with his bias. When looking back to the question, it is extremely hard or nearly impossible for historians to truly give their account of events without adding their own beliefs. This is one of the reasons there are so many versions of history today. Because each historian felt the need to share the information that they had with their own bias. In the end, this also poses the question of what is really true and what is an opinion because all the knowledge we have is from the events written by biased historians.

Ronia Mayende

Source: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/david-irving

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.body
When we talk about culture, we talk about how someone is raised, what values they are told a

nd which events activate which emotions. Culture are social values that we ubsurve from a very young age. And since our brains are altered to react according to these values, we often don’t even recognize being affected by them. It already starts with the research topic. We tend to be most interested in something that we have strong feelings about. When we then find more and more evidence, we tend to prefere subtopics that we find most valuable and interesting. According to studies done by Harvard Macy institute it’s impossible to be completely unbias all the time. In longterm studies the institute found out, that the bias we have because of personal preferences is changeable, however cultural background seems to be implemented deeply in our interests and values. In the UK the public started critizising their history as “white” due to massive underrepresentation of the perspectives of people of color. Taking the Harvard Macy study, this might be because 95% of british historians are white.

While humans and therefore historians might can’t be completely unbias by their cultural background, society can be more critic about which information they’re accepting.

- lisa

Harvard Macy Institute - Blog - Can we be Consciously Unbiased?
Why is history in the UK so white? | Wonkhe

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.body
Culture necessarily influences the historian’s academic work. The influence is most likely to be constructive to the historian’s understanding of their academic inquiries, instead of only imposing bias onto it. Moreover, as cultural context can be learnt, the historian can overcome the boundaries of their own identity and benefit from their understanding of another cultural context.

Academic work is usually expected to be objective, substantiable, and open to question. The historian’s work must have followed the academic guidelines that ensure objectivity and must withstand peer review. The primary goal of cultural knowledge and experience is to add credibility to academic work. For example, Edward Said, a famous scholar engaged with the topic of Israeli-Palestine conflict, has the experience of being a Palestinian-American and working in the Palestine National Council. His cultural knowledge of Palestine credits him to be trusted with interpreting the nuances of the conflict, especially the relevant US foreign policy and the Palestinian people’s struggles. Said’s views are not neutral; he was actively against the Oslo peace process between Palestine and Israel in the early 1990s and is highly critical of US and Israeli policies. His cultural understanding credited his strong views instead of discrediting them as mere cultural biases. He is regarded as a public intellectual and the founder of postcolonial studies, and his work is widely celebrated.

Cultural context is not the source of bias, and it should not be. It assists people in achieving a more sophisticated understanding of difficult topics. Thus historians and scholars investigate culture contexts different to that of their own and learn the cultural context of the other. Perry Link is another scholar who is honored in their field of study; he gives delicate interpretations of Chinese politics that accounts for the influence of the Chinese cultural context. He is white American and his cultural understanding of China is completely learnt. He acquires the knowledge of a cultural context to credit his study of that culture. This knowledge also constructively impacts his studies as he almost internalizes the foreign cultural context as his own.

Sources: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Said

Ziwei

# data[].attributes.headline
Are historians’ accounts necessarily subjective?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are historians’ accounts necessarily subjective?

# data[].attributes.body
As Science Fiction author Douglas Adams once said, “Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you.” Historians have a strong reputation for studying and relaying the facts from important historical events in what the general public deems as an accurate representation of what took place in a subjective way. Regardless, historians’ recollections of those events are influenced by numerous factors, one of which is bias. Traditionally, historians should have a level of impartiality which ensures opinions that focus primarily on the facts. However, many textbooks and reports of historical events demonstrate bias due to factors such as personal and non-personal political and cultural beliefs and in some special cases, involvement in history itself for example Winston Churchill. Whether that is trying to justify “winners” of wars or emphasise the role of white men and under-representing the marginalized groups involved, historians' biases can downplay or change the narrative of the events that have occurred. For example, at my old school, our history textbook emphasised the detrimental impact of Christopher Colombus’ presence and colonisation of the Tainos, Arawaks and Mayan people in the Caribbean in 1492. We also learnt about the details of colonisation including the genocide of those people in countries such as Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad due to diseases brought by Europeans. However, when I got older I discovered that many people in other countries were taught that Christopher Columbus “discovered” the Caribbean in their textbooks and expressed that they learnt that the colonisation was actually Christopher Columbus was him saving those in the Caribbean. He was essentially praised for his actions and deemed a hero for discovering new land in some textbooks by historians from European countries and then vilified by others, specifically Caribbean Historians. These different depictions of events can play a crucial role in fostering knowledge and understanding of past events for other people. Therefore, I do not believe that historians’ accounts are necessarily subjective but instead formed based on personal perceptions.

Source: Understanding historical perspectives

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.body
Culture has an effect on the way a person grows up, and shapes the way the individual learns to see- and understand the world. Everyone develops their own understanding through the overlapping cultures with which they interact. This of course also includes historians. As humans, we are not able to strip away what shaped our thoughts and skills. One can attempt to put aside biases and personal opinions for ‘professional purposes’, and leave out blatantly subjective remarks, but the individual historian would not be able to fully comprehend how far their own bias and context is able to reach. Especially within the field of history, truth can be challenged. People perceive differently, so even first hand-witnesses of the same situation could have vastly different accounts of an event.

In the third grade, my classmate threatened to throw a reasonably sized rock at me, for petty reasons, that to a non-third-grader may seem insignificant, but to us seemed earth-shattering at the time. She did not succeed in said attempt, yet I still sought the help of a teacher, for my own safety (in case such an attempt may repeat itself, of course). I told my rendition of the event, but was then utterly appalled by what my peer had to say about the same happening. She claimed that no rock was ever in her hand, and she did indeed not threaten to throw it at my face, and it was in fact I that had called her names. We had heard what each of us had said and done to each other, and my account seemed truthful and universal to me, but she of course felt the same.

This goes to show that there is no common truth. Historians have endless amounts of facts at their disposal, yet none of them are universal or trustworthy enough to fully confirm that it is true. Therefore historians are forced to choose which arguments best suit their vision of a given event, which inevitably will be affected by a subconscious understanding of the world, which stems from their individual cultural context.

Isalina Klinkby Steimle

# data[].attributes.headline
If it is difficult to establish proof in history, does that mean that all versions are equally acceptable?	

# data[].attributes.subject
If it is difficult to establish proof in history, does that mean that all versions are equally acceptable?	

# data[].attributes.body
One of the hardest part of being a historian is to collect proof that is not exposed to the audience. Searching for proof in order to reach the truth might be tricky and can be influenced by bias, like collecting evidence that confirms personal beliefs, or it can be obstruct/omitted by involved authorities, where the people of power cover the truth and use their position in their favor. One of the most revealing examples is how historian Mikael Suprun was arrested in 2009 by the Russian authorities after trying to investigate what happened to the German prisoners of ww2.
The idea of an impartial historian make us believe that objective historians use the proof found to transmit the truth but the reality is that us humans have different understanding of situations and events, not necessarily due to direct bias but also due to indirect reasons such us our own cognitive process that might have been influenced by certain environment and habits while developing as a child. This doesn't mean that all historians are excused from producing suspicious and dangerous version of history. This is because multiple people are trying to build a world that obeys to their perspectives and opinions and create unpeaceful relationships between communities and countries to their favor selecting/manipulating the proof from the past. We can take as an example each country from this world and look at their school history textbooks, most of them would have a version that supports their beliefs as a country and give the best image about themselves to growing and developing generations.
Thus, we can find different versions of history, some closer to objectivity while some very subjectively influenced.
Those who are closer to subjectivity (since we also ignore the truth, we can base our evaluation on description and the narration of events), meaning that they use similar description of events not glorifying one side over the other, can be received nearly positively. However, those who have very intensely manipulated versions, meaning that they describe events differently depending on the main subject (glorifying a certain race or gender), can be questioned and received as an unreliable source of information.
in conclusion, we can say that YES it is hard to establish proof in history as it can be interpreted differently, and NO not all versions should be treated equally.
source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mWBnrKN_efGuaJjC7Wsp4NFBWmNWbl6I1sTG8QTcVQU/edit
Amna Soua

# data[].attributes.headline
Are historians’ accounts necessarily subjective? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Are historians’ accounts necessarily subjective? 

# data[].attributes.body
Historians mostly gather knowledge from the past, not like scientists can do observations about what happened in the lab. History is not merely subjective and sound historical knowledge is not purely speculative or only based on interpretation.

For instance, American Revolutionary War in the US textbooks is super significant and changed the course of history. However, in the rest of the countries around the world, this is barely taught and when it becomes an add-up to the french revolution, it's not even the most significant part in the break up of the British Empire.

As the example above, we can see usually historians' are subjective due to their sense of patriotism. They would interpret the fact in a good way and as a result of making the student even citizens being proud of their country.

Source：Understanding historical perspectives
Jasper

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
Boats and boating--Equipment and supplies

# data[].attributes.headline
Question #4: Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.subject
Question #4: Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

# data[].attributes.body
Cultural context invariably impacts the way in which historians interpret and present historical events, as all people are shaped by the information and ideas available to them.

This sometimes manifests through a bias that favors their cultural context, due to being exposed to only stories which they have been told are important parts of history, and which they perceive as having greater magnitude than narratives they are not familiar with. This can be seen in nations like Japan often wholly overlooking WWII, teaching it as a relatively minor historical incident. A similar example is the United States’ downplaying of the Vietnam War. In the rare case it even is discussed, the monumental impact which the war had on the citizens of Vietnam is typically belied. The intention of the war as a brutal proxy war within the overall context of the Cold War is additionally typically overlooked, and it is usually shown as a glorious anticommunist campaign. This narrative portrays the United States as valiantly attempting to save many Vietnamese citizens from a cruel totalitarian regime - not giving generations of Vietnamese health complications with the defoliant chemical Agent Orange.

On the other hand, discussions about history can be made contrary to a historian’s cultural context due to their perception of foreign historical narratives as having more truth, importance, or global relevance. In some cases, a later exposure to certain historical developments can make the historian perceive it as having greater magnitude, as it is contrary to the narrative which they were exposed to in their youth or education. This specifically comes into play more notably when individuals are from an education system, culture, or governmental regime which they distrust, in which case they are more likely to view concepts hidden from them as more important or honest in nature. In this case, historians are liable to deeply research this topic, often taking a stance on it radically different from their home context. This is motivated by their perception of their cultural context as uniquely fallible, which often catalyzes the glorification of ideas contrary to aforementioned context. This would be represented in the case in which a historian ends up perceiving the Vietnam War as the most integral part of United States history, as they view it as a horrible incident suppressed by the U.S. government. While the latter part is not incorrect, this perception could lead to the overrepresentation of the significance of this individual war.

Sources
https://www.ushistory.org/us/55.asp

Graham

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context? (Amritha)

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context? (Amritha)

# data[].attributes.body
It is absolutely unavoidable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context. All people, regardless of how impartial they presume themselves to be, are constantly influenced by the cultural, social, political, and economic context they are surrounded by, throughout all stages of their life. This does not exclude historians. Being an expert in history does not preclude a person from the influence of the culture that surrounds them, or the biases that come with that environment.

An example of this is the way students in the UK are taught about former prime minister Winston Churchill in history textbooks. Churchill is framed by some historians through a patriotic lens, as a great politician who did no wrong. This excludes the facts about Churchill's many "controversial and often unsuccessful" decisions throughout his career.

This method of teaching history promotes the patriotic content of textbooks as a universal truth. It ignores the fact that important information, critical of Churchill and illustrating his wrongdoings, is excluded from what students are taught. In this way, historians are biased and influenced by their own cultural perspectives, which often leads to a narrow point of view, subconsciously perpetuating blind patriotism.

Source: historyrising.net, Ned Riley article "Understanding historical perspectives."

# data[].attributes.headline
Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? 

# data[].attributes.body
The historian cannot be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material because there is always going to be a bias they have as a person.

Everybody grows up in different surroundings and environments which changes the bias they have. Someone from a colonizing country might see this period very differently and not as negatively as someone who is from a country which has been colonized. This is because history textbooks can write certain events without perspectives of the opposite country, which glorifies their side of the event and shames the opposite country.  This creates an unjust image in a student's mind about the history of their country and the other countries involved in it.

An example of this bias in a textbook is that students in the US learn about the opening shot of the American Revolutionary War as  "the shot heard around the world". But what students do not realise is that in the rest of the world the American Revolutionary War is barely taught. And that it is merely an add-on to the French Revolution. This shows that already early on when learning about history in the first place there is a bias depending on what country you are from.

This is why a historian cannot be free of bias as there will always be even the slightest bit of bias. Even though a historian is writing something using all perspectives of the event  it is still not possible to fully close out all biases that you have as a person because these are part of who you are and this is shaped by what country you are from/have lived in.

Sources: Understanding historical perspectives - Google Docs

Lois Dijkstra