is it possible to write an unbiased history book

I think that's an interesting question, is it possible to step outside your cultural and social milieu and be completely bias free.

Manach

Fair enough question and it has been a matter of debate on the nature of how history is written. My own 2c is no. That one's culture and beliefs are such an ingrained part of personality, even if an attempt is made to step away then the underlying traits dominate or lead to an anemic work. If I read a book by Eric Hobsbawm or Paul Johnson then the biases are clear and open and one can adjust & enjoy

gerrybbadd

They do say that history is written by the Victors. Interesting concept. I'm sure if such an idea was attempted, there would need to be a team doing it, in order to rule out personal or cultural bias etc.

pedroeibar1

+1 on Manach's post. No writer is that perfect, but some are more biased than others. You need to read a minimum of two books on a topic to have the basis of an approach to further study. Hobsbawn is good, but his bias (for me) ruins his storytelling. One can excuse some uneducated person recounting their role in an historic event(s) but I sometimes feel like throwing a book at the wall when I see a good writer destroy his/her book by totally biased writing. For example, there is a potentially great book on the Highland Clearances that was ruined by the writer - The Crofter's Tale I think it was called.

Peregrinus

Of course, it's only bias if its different from the bias that I have myself!

No, unbiassed history is impossible. The mere judgment that topic X is deserving of a written history, rather than topic Y, is a reflection of the historian's values, priorities, etc, as is every decision he makes when actually writing the history - what to include, what to omit, what to focus on, what to research.

That's why no text can be considered the "definitive history" of anything. A good history text will make a contribution, provide a fresh perspective, uncover or draw attention to new material, and generally improve our understanding. So history, even though biassed, may well be valuable and worthwhile. But there's always another perspective to be offered.

Arsemageddon

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

+1 on Manach's post. No writer is that perfect, but some are more biased than others. You need to read a minimum of two books on a topic to have the basis of an approach to further study. Hobsbawn is good, but his bias (for me) ruins his storytelling. One can excuse some uneducated person recounting their role in an historic event(s) but I sometimes feel like throwing a book at the wall when I see a good writer destroy his/her book by totally biased writing. For example, there is a potentially great book on the Highland Clearances that was ruined by the writer - The Crofter's Tale I think it was called.

I think the book your talking about is called On the Crofter's Trail, it's not really a history book, more an author going on a spiritual journey (my words) - a concept that should inspire dread!

tac foley

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, unbiassed history is impossible. The mere judgment that topic X is deserving of a written history, rather than topic Y, is a reflection of the historian's values, priorities, etc, as is every decision he makes when actually writing the history - what to include, what to omit, what to focus on, what to research.

That's why no text can be considered the "definitive history" of anything. A good history text will make a contribution, provide a fresh perspective, uncover or draw attention to new material, and generally improve our understanding. So history, even though biassed, may well be valuable and worthwhile. But there's always another perspective to be offered.

I'm not wholly supportive of your opinion, valued though it is, of course.

Here in the West we are renowned for writing historical tomes about the Eastern histories that, at the times in which they were contemporary, had absolutely no connection with contemporary Western history.

I have yet to read, for instance, or even hear of, a history of the Wars of the Roses written by a Japanese, Chinese or Indian scholar. Such a history might be construed as unbiased, wouldn't it?

tac

pedroeibar1

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I think the book your talking about is called On the Crofter's Trail, it's not really a history book, more an author going on a spiritual journey (my words) - a concept that should inspire dread!

Thanks, that was the title I think, I don't remember the spiritual journey bit, what I do recall was that it was heavy on the clearances of the islands - Uist, Barra, etc., and the subsequent lives of the emigrants in Canada. The author, apart from enhanced solialist views felt he had a god-given right to trample/ramble wherever he wanted without let or hindrance - in one place he took himself into the middle of a stalking party and was annoyed that he should be questioned by the gamekeeper. It was about the only book I could buy in the airport shop in I think Glasgow where I was stuck for hours while I waited for the next flight after a cancellation!

Peregrinus

tac foley wrote: »

I have yet to read, for instance, or even hear of, a history of the Wars of the Roses written by a Japanese, Chinese or Indian scholar. Such a history might be construed as unbiased, wouldn't it?

I wouldn't think so. It would be written from perspectives influenced by Japanese, Chinese or Indian culture, beliefs, etc.

ParsleyQueen

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't think so. It would be written from perspectives influenced by Japanese, Chinese or Indian culture, beliefs, etc.

And considering their history with the Empire and other western cultures, I think an unbiased history of the wars of the roses would be doubly impossible.

Jolly Red Giant

No - it is not possible to write an unbiased history book - every historian looks at history from their perspective and their influences. There is nothing wrong with this - it is and should be part of the process of history writing as it ensures a wide variety of interpretations.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You need to read a minimum of two books on a topic to have the basis of an approach to further study.

You need to read as many different perspectives as possible. But more than that - if you really want to develop your own understanding of historiography then you have to research primary sources, develop your own interpretation and review it in the light of other material.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Hobsbawn is good, but his bias (for me) ruins his storytelling.

Only because you do not agree with his perspective. I, in general, don't agree with Hobsbawn's perspective (which comes from the Stalinist academic tradition) but he has made an enormous contribution to the history of the evolution of society over several hundred years. His books provide a major source of evidence, understanding and interpretation of the topics he wrote about.

A willingness to keep an open mind no matter who the writer is and what perspective he/she comes from contributes significantly to the individual understanding of history and the ability to interpret evidence. I change my own interpretation of historical topics on a regular basis in the light of reading new (for me) material and considering new evidence that I had not previously been aware of or considered.

pedroeibar1

Read what I wrote and give over the pedantry.:rolleyes:

Jellybaby1

This reminds me that I asked the very same question in 2013 with regard to history courses (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85417852). The replies were about the same as here. I have been to many talks and a few courses over the years and with all of them there is always a bias and not necessarily opposite to my own but it can be very obvious with some tutors. I can get past all the bias and treat it as a mature adult should but wouldn't it be wrong to do this in a primary and secondary level school setting. A person's bias may heavily influence young minds without informing them (children) of the whole story surely? Why pass on your own personal prejudices, in any country?

You can make history fit any personal theory you have, for example class war theory if you try hard enough.

I know someone who is absolutely convinced that the conflict in NI is all about a class war.

pedroeibar1

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

.......... A person's bias may heavily influence young minds without informing them (children) of the whole story surely? Why pass on your own personal prejudices, in any country?

Bigots exist in all walks of life, “history” is no exception. Those people read and see only what they want to see and use their narrow, twisted, perverse and wilful bias in an attempt to justify their personal viewpoints or to fool those who know less. They will misquote, overstate and do anything to misrepresent an event to suit their personal notions of ‘history’. Sad people, really, and dangerous if allowed near a classroom.

Jellybaby1

Fully agree Pedro. This has happened and is probably still happening here today, and as we know in many countries throughout the world, with devastating results.

Dr.Nightdub

Peregrinus wrote: »

what to include, what to omit, what to focus on, what to research.

What to include? Everything
What to omit? Nothing
What to focus on? Whatever seems important from the evidence
What to research? Everything

Then the editors take over...but that approach left me no option but to describe my own granda's involvement in one particular episode as "unforgiveable".

DavidRamsay99

mariaalice wrote: »

I think that's an interesting question, is it possible to step outside your cultural and social milieu and be completely bias free.

No.

Even the fairest historian will bring his or her biases and prejudices and selectivity.
The more perspectives on a historical event the better.
History never ends because there is never a final world on the past.

ZagreusSpears

Some historians say there is no evidence of Jesus other than the gospels.
Supported by books (scrolls) found about that time and he is not mention.

Some people will say that is plenty of proof.

Since one's do not read ancient aramaic or greek and probably will never get access the secret Vatican vault.

We can read from different sources, but in the end just pick a side and support it.

Renegade Mechanic

mariaalice wrote: »

I think that's an interesting question, is it possible to step outside your cultural and social milieu and be completely bias free.

Unfortunately not. History is written by the victors of conflict, which itself, doesn't determine who is right or wrong, good or evil. It determines, simply, who remains.

Dr.Nightdub

Not true. History is written by observers of conflict. They may have to rely on the evidence of participants to that conflict but that needn't be their only source. Equally, some participants leave no evidence, yet history can still be written.

Eugene Norman

ZagreusSpears wrote: »

Some historians say there is no evidence of Jesus other than the gospels.
Supported by books (scrolls) found about that time and he is not mention.

Some people will say that is plenty of proof.

Since one's do not read ancient aramaic or greek and probably will never get access the secret Vatican vault.

We can read from different sources, but in the end just pick a side and support it.

Actually there are few if any historians who argue the non-historical case outside Internet forums.