HISTORY TOK. Memento – Deliberate Manipulation Introduction Imagine waking up one morning to discover that you have lost your memory. After a few minutes

HISTORY TOK

Memento Deliberate Manipulation

Introduction Imagine waking up one morning to discover that you have lost your memory. After a few minutes of blind panic, you begin to examine the room you find yourself in. You discover a scribbled note which says Meet George, corner of Lawrence and Broadway, 9:30. You glance at the clock. It is 8:00am. Since you dont want to tell anyone about your predicament, you give yourself an hour and a half to work out who you are from the contents of what is clearly your bedroom and make it to Lawrence and Broadway to meet George whoever he is.

Lost Memory and History Parallel The thought of losing your memory is a frightening one not only because memories are precious in themselves, but also because your sense of who you are and where you are going is bound up with what you have done. Without the compass of memory to guide you, you would be adrift in a meaningless ocean of time with no sense of identity or direction. One interesting approach to thinking about history is to begin with our own micro-histories. To a greater or lesser extent, we all try to make sense of the past by weaving the various episodes of our lives into a meaningful narrative.

A few interesting questions This raises a number of interesting questions: COMP 1. Why should you care about your past? What dangers are there in being obsessed with your past, and what dangers are there in ignoring it? 2. How good is your memory, and how reliable do you think it is as a guide to the past? 3. If you do or were to keep a diary, what determines what you choose to include and what you choose to omit? 4. Would you be more inclined to trust an autobiography or a biography written about a person? 5. To what extent do you think that people learn from their mistakes, and to what extent do you think they keep making the same mistakes?

What is history? In answering the question What is history?, we might begin by saying that it is the study of the past. This may be a reasonable first approximation, but the answer is in fact more complicated than that. 3 important features of history 1. Evidence 2. Significance 3. Explaining the past

1. Evidence We can only know the past to the extent that we have evidence. Evidence - facts or signs that show clearly that something exists or is true It would be more accurate to say that history is not so much the study of the past as of the present traces of the past. In trying to reconstruct the past on the basis of evidence, one of two problems may arise: 1. Too little evidence 2. Too much evidence

Lost Memory Activity COMP If you found yourself in the situation from the previous slide, to what extent do you think you would be able to reconstruct your identity by examining the objects in your room? What problems would you experience in trying to do this, and how similar are they to those facing a historian?

1. Evidence (too little) A real danger is a situation where we misinterpret the evidence that exists, and jump to conclusions that are not justified by it. Imagine an alien examining the following photos Comp: What conclusion would the aliens draw?

1. Evidence (too little) The problem of lack of evidence is a real one, and it is sometimes surprising to discover that our knowledge claims about the past are less well justified than we might have imagined. For example, our knowledge of the wars between Persia and Greece in the 5 th century B.C.E. is based on a single, quite unreliable source the Greek historian Herodotus.

1. Evidence (too much) When it comes to modern history, we are usually faced with the opposite problem: too much evidence. What is an example of too much evidence? 1. 9/11 2. Too Much Information article 3. COMP How is finding truth in an avalanche of blogs and tweets like a historians job? (Turn this in on a separate sheet of paper)

2. Significance This brings us to a second qualification we need to make about the nature of history. History is not a record of everything that happened in the past, but is concerned with only the significant events in the past. Significance - the importance of an event, action etc, especially because of the effects or influence it will have in the future For example, while some events of 9/11 are historically important, the fact that I had cereal for breakfast the morning of the attack is not.

2. Significance (cont.) Using any criteria of your choice, rate the historical significance of the following events on a scale of 1-10 a. The publication of Charles Darwins The Origin of Species in 1859. b. Your last TOK class. c. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. d. The 1930 soccer World Cup Final which was won by Uruguay. e. The birth of Bill Gates in 1955. f. Former US president Bill Clintons affair with Monica Lewinsky. g. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.

2. Significance (cont.) Once we start taking about significant events we run into the problem of how to decide whether or not an event is significant. While you might think that significance like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are various criteria we might use in order to decide whether or not an event is historically significant. For example, you can look at how many people are affected by the event, and the extent to which they are affected. While a dramatic event, such as political assassination, is likely to affect many people in a significant way, the same cannot be said of a TOK class.

2. Significance (cont.) So is there any way in which a TOK class might become at least a footnote in history? A couple possibilities Your teacher makes a remark in a TOK class that inspires you to enter politics, and you eventually become the president. Years later when you write your memoirs, you observe: During that fateful TOK class in October 2011, I first felt the hand of destiny on me and knew that I must enter politics. A series of nuclear wars devastates the planet. Many centuries must pass before civilization re-establishes itself. As luck has it, one of the few things that survive the war are your TOK notes. Future historians pore over them and try to get an idea of what life was like at the beginning of the 21 st century.

History is not simply concerned with describing the past, but also with explaining and understanding it. Why would we need to understand the collapse of the Roman Empire The Russian Revolution the Cold War the rise of Fascism. How is this different from knowing facts about these events? Comp on separate sheet to turn in: What is history?

Why study history? 1. History gives us a sense of identity 2. History is a defense against propaganda. 3. History enriches our understanding of human nature.

Why study history? Sense of Identity A country without history is like a person without memory. We talked about waking up with no sense of knowing who we are. What is true of an individual is also true of a country. If a country does not know where it came from, it cannot make sense of the present of future. If you are to have informed opinions about current affairs, and your judgments about other countries are to go beyond mere prejudice, then a knowledge of history is indispensable. Identity the qualities and attitudes that a person or group of people have, that make them different from other people

Why study history? Sense of Identity French Identity Problem Tariq Ramadan - Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies

Why study history? Sense of Identity COMP What should an immigrant to a new country learn as part of the process of becoming a member of that society? How important do you think it is for our political leaders to have a good knowledge of history? Do you think that some countries are more obsessed with their history than others? What dangers, if any, are there in Ignoring the past Being obsessed with the past

Why study history? Defense against propaganda Propaganda - information which is false or which emphasizes just one part of a situation, used by a government or political group to make people agree with them.

Why study history? Defense against propaganda First, lets look at the propaganda you see every day.

Why study history? Defense against propaganda Next, lets review Nazi propaganda. COMP: How does it relate to the propaganda you see every day? What can we learn from this in TOK?

Why study history? Defense against propaganda Where can propaganda be found in Chicago? Martin Luther King website Martin Luther King website Chicago Police Propaganda and Homicide Rates Chicago Police Propaganda and Homicide Rates

Why study history? Defense against propaganda Avatar Propaganda???

Why study history? Enriches our understanding of human nature History shows us what human beings have thought and done in a wide variety of circumstances. Subjects such as psychology, sociology, and economics seek to explain things in terms of general principles, history reminds us that human behavior can never be fully explained in terms of neat and tidy models.

Why study history? Enriches our understanding of human nature COMP For turn in on separate paper Read the following quote. From your own study of history, to what extent do you think the pessimistic assessment of human beings is justified? Are there any grounds for taking a more optimistic view? One cannot avoid a certain feeling of disgust, when one observes the actions of man displayed on the great stage of the world. Wisdom is manifested by individuals here and there; but the web of human history as a whole appears to be woven from folly and childish vanity, often, too, from puerile wickedness and love of destruction: with the result that at the end one is puzzled to know what idea to form of our species which prides itself to much on its advantages. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Why study history? Enriches our understanding of human nature Its ok to question whether history should make us feel optimistic of pessimistic. We should be careful, however, with the phrase History shows when it is used by someone who it trying to prove something. For example, it has been said that history shows that war is inevitable, or that different races are unable to live together in harmony. The problem with such beliefs is that they can easily become self-realizing expectations If you think that something cannot be changed, you wont even bother trying to change it.

Why study history? Enriches our understanding of human nature However, the historical record can sometimes be a source of hope rather than despair; for it suggests that the future does not have to be like the past, and that it is possible to change things. For example The abolition of slavery The emancipation of women The birth of the United Nations Such changes would never have come about if people had seen themselves the victims of history.

How can the past be known? Exercise: a team of researchers wants to study Senn to write a History of teenagers in 2013. As a class, identify a public event that has occurred at Senn recently. Answer the questions on the next slide:

How can the past be known? COMP: What were the most striking characteristics of the event? What would you consider the 5 most important events at the school in the last year? What do you consider the 3 most important things students have gained from Senn in your time here? One of the researchers asks you how he can gain the best information about Senn culture and ambiance. What do you recommend he see? Who is best qualified to write a history of Senn? Why?

How can the past be known? One obvious problem with trying to know the past is that it no longer exists. Sceptical extreme It is abstractly possible that God created the universe 5 seconds ago with memories, fossils and copies of yesterdays newspapers. Since any evidence you give to the contrary (ruins, cave paintings, etc.) might also have been created 5 seconds ago, it is impossible to falsify this belief. However, it would be difficult to see why God should engage in such an elaborate deception, so no sane person would doubt the existence of the past.

How can the past be known? Opposite of skeptical extreme It could be argued that, since the past no longer exists, it cannot be changed and is therefore completely objective. The historian G.R. Elton (1921-94) argued that: In a very real sense the study of history is concerned with a subject matter more objective and independent than that of the natural sciences. Just because historical matter is in the past, is goneits objective reality is guaranteed; it is beyond being altered for any purpose whatsoever. COMP Compare Eltons claim that history is objective with Samuel Butlers (1835-1902) wry comment: Though God cannot alter the past, historians can. Which of these views do you think is closer to the truth?

How can the past be known? While you would probably agree that the past cannot be changed, when it comes to the question of whether or not history is objective, we should make the distinction between the past and our knowledge of the past. Eltons argument may show that the past is objective, but it says nothing about our knowledge of the past. Such knowledge is problematic because we can know the past only by reconstructing is on the bases of evidence that exists in the present. Since memory fallible, evidence ambiguous, and prejudice common, we might have serious doubts about the claim that historical knowledge is more objective than scientific knowledge.

How can the past be known? Despite these doubts, objectivity surely remains an important ideal in history. For if we abandon it, we have no way of distinguishing between history on the one hand, and propaganda and fiction on the other. The real question is to what extent a trained historian can approach the ideal of objectivity, and this requires that we look in more detail at the nature of historical evidence.

How can the past be known? Primary Sources Historians commonly distinguish between primary sources and secondary sources. Primary source one that is written by someone who was there at the time. Secondary source a second-hand account of what happened. Examples: Julius Caesars The Conquest of Gaul is a primary source because it is Caesars own account of the wars he fought. By contrast, Edward Gibbons The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a secondary source because it is a much later reconstruction of the fate of the Roman Empire.

How can the past be known? Primary Sources Some accounts of what happened in the past are based only on secondary sources. For example, if you write an essay about the causes of the French Revolution, your bibliography may list a range of books but no original documents. But it is obvious that if such sources are to have any authority they must be ultimately grounded in primary sources the first-hand accounts of individuals who witnessed the events in question. For this reason, primary sources are often described as the bedrock of history.

How can the past be known? Primary Sources You might wonder how firm the bedrock of history is. There are reasons for thinking that primary sources cannot be taken at face value and that they are, in a sense, already contaminated. Here are some problems Fallible Eye-witness Social Bias Deliberate Manipulation

How can the past be known? Problems with Primary Sources Fallible Eye-witness an eye witness who does not record the correct account of an event due to perception, emotion, interests, expectations, and cultural background. Imagine that several people are witness to the same historical events. (like Senn changing its reputation) We would probably end up with as many different accounts as there are writers. Since no two individuals see things in the same way, their perceptions are likely to be shaped by such things as their interests, expectations, and cultural background. While some events may be exaggerated, others may be played down or completely ignored.

How can the past be known? Problems with Primary Sources Social Bias reflecting the interests of one particular social group rather than society as a whole, and therefore, providing a distorted picture of things. For example, we tend to think that medieval Europe was a very religious place, but this may simply reflect that fact that the chroniclers of the time were mainly religious people who considered it important to record everything related to religion. The people with power control the pens and printing presses, and primary sources have often reflected their interests and activities at the expense of other social groups. We will never know much about Greek slaves, feudal peasants, or Aztec warriors, but it is at least worth being aware of the blank pages in history.

How can the past be known? Problems with Primary Sources Deliberate Manipulation When primary sources are purposefully modified by governments and other interest groups to change the facts of history. COMP on separate sheet for turn in Read the statement by George Orwell in the next slide. If the Nazis had won the war, what kinds of lies would have made it into the history books? What does Orwells statement tell you about the content in history books?

How can the past be known? Problems with Primary Sources Up to a fairly recent date, the major events recorded in the history books probably happened. It is probably true that the battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, that Columbus discovered America, that Henry VIII had 6 wives, and so on. A certain degree of truthfulness was possible so long as it was admitted that a fact may be true even if you dont like it. Even as late as the last war it was possible for the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, to compile its articles on the various campaigns partly from German sources. Some of the facts the casualty figures, for instance were regarded as neutral and in substance accepted by everybody. NEXT SLIDE

How can the past be known? Problems with Primary Sources No such thing would be possible now. A Nazi and a non-Nazi version of the present war would have no resemblance to one another, and which of them finally gets into the history books will be decided not be evidential methods but on the battlefield During part of 1941 and 1942, when the Luftwaffe was busy in Russia, the German radio regaled its home audiences with stories of devastating air raids on London. Now, we are aware that those raids did not happen. But what use would our knowledge be if the Germans conquered Britain For the purposes of a future historian, did those ranks happen, or didnt they? The answer is: If Hitler survives, they happened, and if he falls they didnt happen.

How can the past be known? Problems with Primary Sources Orwells point is that if the Nazis had won the war then the basic facts would have been what the propaganda ministry said they were. All kinds of lies would have made their way into the history books and become truths. However, we are still the victims of a great deal of spin and misinformation; but behind the propaganda fog one hopes that it is still possible to discern at least an outline of truth.

How can the past be known? Worth of Primary Sources Who wrote it? What was their motive in writing it? How long after the event was it written? Compare different primary sources to see how far they agree with one another. For example, if Israeli and Palestinian eye-witnesses agree on something, its probably true. Look at documents of a legal and administrative nature which are less likely to be biased than letters and diaries. The fact that historians frequently disagree with one another should not blind us to the truth that there are a vast number of basic historical facts that everyone agrees about.

Summing Up Primary Sources

Howard Zinn Activity Answer the following two questions What do you think should be a historians goal(s)? Why do you think people should study history? Howard Zinn Introduction

Howard Zinn Activity I dont want to invent victories for peoples movements. But to think that history-writing must aim simply to recapitulate the failures that dominate the past is to make historians collaborators in an endless cycle of defeat. If history is to be creative, to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past, when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win. I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping, that our future may be found in the pasts fugitive moments of compassion rather than in its solid centuries of warfare. That, being as blunt as I can, is my approach to the history of the United States. The reader may as well know this before going on.

Howard Zinn Activity How would you paraphrase this historians approach to United States history? What does he seem to value and why? What does he seem to think the purpose and function of history is? How does this approach seem similar to and different from how you have studied history in school?

Documents

HISTORY TOK. Memento – Deliberate Manipulation Introduction Imagine waking up one morning to discover that you have lost your memory. After a few minutes