I think history is fascinating. But I think I’ve always been a little confused about the philosophy and techniques used to gather and report it. I’m sure a historian will say that most of my concerns are covered in History 101. So, I apologize if my thoughts on it are silly.
Have you ever attended an event and then read about it in the newspaper the following day? I have had this experience a few times, and each time I felt as if I were reading about a completely different event than the one I attended. These were relatively minor events, but it seems that the event I experienced may have been lost historically. That is, someone may be able to go back and find one of those newspaper articles. But they would lose nearly everything was essential (in my opinion) to what the event was about.
I’m just not sure when I am reading an account of an historical event whose perspective I am getting, and what that truly means. I know that Howard Zinn had written about the importance of providing another perspective – say, the “discovering” of America from the perspective of a people who had already been there. But it seems that there is an awful lot more to what is happening “now” that is bound to be lost.
I guess at a minimum, I’d like to see historical writing provide historical perspective, as well as what is not covered. When discussing the Carter administration, for example, are we covering it from the perspective of someone living in East Timor during that time who had to live with the consequences of the administration’s continued support (hundreds of millions in military assistance) for Indonesia.