can history ever be neutral?

can the writing of history ever be neutral? what do u all think? is there anything called "a neutral standpoint of viewing history"?

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

can the writing of history ever be neutral? what do u all think? is there anything called "a neutral standpoint of viewing history"?

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

can the writing of history ever be neutral? what do u all think? is there anything called "a neutral standpoint of viewing history"?

I don't think so. Historians might give their best shot in narrating the events without tainting them with their personal opinions, but some figures always get antagonized even in those narrations...so, no, i don't think there's anythin as a neutral outlook towards historical events. But then, we can always try. Perhaps by scrutinizing those firsthand accounts, documentaries, etc carefully, trying to understand the multiple dimensions they possess and draw the most objective conclusion out of it. But I doubt if it's still gonna be completely accurate.
What do you think, miss history major? :P

Originally posted by: Midnight_Shade

I don't think so. Historians might give their best shot in narrating the events without tainting them with their personal opinions, but some figures always get antagonized even in those narrations...so, no, i don't think there's anythin as a neutral outlook towards historical events. But then, we can always try. Perhaps by scrutinizing those firsthand accounts, documentaries, etc carefully, trying to understand the multiple dimensions they possess and draw the most objective conclusion out of it. But I doubt if it's still gonna be completely accurate.
What do you think, miss history major? :P

@summer:

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

yes, and add to it the fact that history is always written by the victors...so we often lose out on a neutral perspective.

History is always written by the victors? I wasn't aware of that.
If you talk about history text-books, they're most definitely biased. But you always have the option of sorting out the "puzzle" and creating a big picture of your own. You don't necessarily have to agree with the narrator's take on any event if you take the trouble to try to assess both sides of the coin carefully and then come to your own personal conclusion, y'know. It's silly on our part if we expect impartial facts from any piece of work.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

@summer:

can u name some historians who are "neutral" in ur perception?

history belongs to the victor and can never be neutral. those who write history will always be bias by their point of view. it is only one side of the face, half of what we know.

Originally posted by: Midnight_Shade

History is always written by the victors? I wasn't aware of that.
If you talk about history text-books, they're most definitely biased. But you always have the option of sorting out the "puzzle" and creating a big picture of your own. You don't necessarily have to agree with the narrator's take on any event if you take the trouble to try to assess both sides of the coin carefully and then come to your own personal conclusion, y'know. It's silly on our part if we expect impartial facts from any piece of work.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

can the writing of history ever be neutral? what do u all think? is there anything called "a neutral standpoint of viewing history"?-- Neutral=mistery...There is no neutral, only +ve and -ve,incidents in history...😊