inportb

History is, and has always been, misunderstood. Retrospectively, we view history as a linear progression that leads logically from event to event to event, from fact to fact to fact. While such a simplification is often necessary for historical instruction, it masks the true complexity of history.

When we study history, we often ask, how did we get here from there?, where here is the state that we are in now and there is some state that we were in previously. Rarely do we ask, starting from there, where could we have gone? Historians do not concern themselves with possibilities; what could have been is not nearly as important as what has been. As far as we know, there is just one timeline linking our very beginnings to now, and we invest quite a bit of effort into linearizing our account of the past. If it did not happen to us… if it did not happen in our universe, we should not care. After all, we are a selfish people.

History has always been a selfish perspective, and proudly so. Any attempt at interpreting history as pure fact simply distorts its true meaning. As a complex species with a multifaceted culture, we place particular weight on our values. What we perceive and what we transmit are always tied to the current situation. We filter the endless stream of information that we are subject to depending on the particular subcultures to which we subscribe. Any attempt to detach ourselves from culture or to transcend our humanity would dilute the context that is so very relevant in our history. Each step in our past is defined by the unique blend of culture that existed at the time. Together, these cultural moments create a multidimensional tapestry. Each subculture views the tapestry from a different angle and distills from it a linear projection. This is not how history actually occurs, however; the wild edges of the fabric have no direction until they are constrained by threads of the past. While retrospective history is a selfish and linear projection, prospective history is an infinite tree of possibilities constrained by the past.

It stands to reason, therefore, that each turning point in history should be interpreted in a variety of ways. The second world war, a topic of much debate, means different things to different nations. Each participant views itself as a victim, never a victimizer. Each group was fighting against barbaric marauders who threatened their righteous motives. Indeed, the Japanese account stressed the devastation due to the atomic bomb and their subsequent compromises for the benefit of humanity; the American account emphasized with indignation the attack on Pearl Harbor and claimed that the atomic bomb saved lives; the German account told of a quest for a better world of superior humans; and the Chinese account is that of an innocent bystander drawn into conflict, courageously defending its existence.

But is any one history more correct than the others? While each group would certainly uphold its own version as truth, it is worth noting that each history is valid within context; no history is inaccurate for selective presentation of information. Taken as a whole, history is relevant to all of us. History defines us, and each interpretation is as important as the others.

Popularity: 1%