The article that appealed to me the most was Zinn's...mainly because most of his points I could agree with. I think I am drawn to Zinn's interpretations because he talks about not just what history is, but also of how it should be handled. Before reading this interview...I had always aspired to be objective when viewing history. However, admittedly, I have always failed in this aspect especially when talking about slavery overseas, in the U.S., the Caribbeans, etc. So, when I read Zinn's interview, (and through further discussion in class), I came to the conclusion that historians, and history scholars, teachers, etc. all have a bias, but it's not their bias that should create the interpretation rather it is the evidence should paint the picture for others to interpret (not sure if i made any sense there sounded better in my head). Zinn also raises another point which I had always agreed with when he gave the example of the Mexican War and how we should not just view history from the sides of the victor, or even the important figures throughout history. Perhaps we should view how the Mexicans viewd the war, or the soldiers, or the politicians against the war...there are so many view points in which history can be viewed because everyone of us is part of history.
Becker's article is interesting...he talks of how history is an everyday activity by reducing the definition down to its lowest terms; history is the memory of things said and done. A few have stated that Becker's article is difficult to understand and its hard to see his point. I myself had to his writings more than twice in most areas. However, he does raise certain points that are noteworthy and true. When he talks about history as being as near to us as just a second ago, he raises a good point about the present. He states that
No comments:
Post a Comment