Facts and Debate

[Blame Canada]

Sorry for bringing this up, but I find it somewhat interesting. I found this in another thread at these forums, and think it deserves a thread on it's own:

"facts are stuffy and boring, what can you do with them? history shouldn't be lectured to anyone. history is meant to be debated, to invite people into it."

I find this statement quite interesting as a history student and would like to hear people's opinon on this subject.

Personally I'm of the belief that any historian or person involved with the use of history should or ought to strive for the historical facts. I'm of the opinion that debating history is good, but only to the point where the debate itself is not the goal but the means with which to reach further knowledge.

I believe that the search for facts can, and should, be put in this simple diagram:
Facts -> Study -> Debate -> Theory -> Study -> Debate -> Possible new facts

As a basis we have some facts or sources, be they acheological or any other kind. These are carefully studied by single persons or groups around the world. After this a debate among and between the groups takes place during which theories are aired and discussed. Then again these theories are studied by historians in groups or on their own, followed by yet a debate that hopefully leads to new knowledge or even new facts.

[Kaos]

I agree with what you said, and whoever said that quote is a bit... dumb.

History is based upon fact. Somethings maybe hard to prove, or their may be opposing theories but the vast majority of history is based upon fact and the discrepancies that arise between different historians view are basically cosmetic.

For example you can't dispute World War II occured, but the reasons it occured are many, and whilst some historians include all of them, others do not. So history has to be lectured or taught because otherwise we might be debating stuff that never happened? If that makes sense...:confused:

You can't just say "history can't be preached, it needs to be debated". How are they debaters going to know what they are talking about? In my opinion, they way history is taught at schools (well mine at least) is good. They give you the facts, that no-one can dispute, and a different sources with different views. Then it's up for us to make up our minds. For example, our last topic was on the League of Nations. The essay question we were given for our assessment task was:

"The League of Nations was a failure from its start to its end"
Do you believe this is a fair and balanced view of the League?

The question let's us make up our own mind and debate the question, while using facts to support our arguements. How you can have a debate without using facts and examples to support your case eludes me.

[permanent666]

history is not the same as the past - history is always a reconstruction of the past with the help of historical sources from a specific fewpoint.

objectivity is never possible, therefore it is important to debate, to get multible point of views of the past.

in history lessons there is not much time to debate, so they have to convey mainly facts.

i hope you can understand what i mean, because my english is very poor

[enigma]

debates - they are mainly built upon facts or questions.
Something has to be there to start a debate, then as Kaos said you then start throwing sources in to back you up on said point (facts).

But the topic he posted that in, started off like this:


Alright, posts thing that from the top of your head about the Pacific front. Here's some. . . facts.

I can see where hes coming from as there is nothing to debate its just a post full of facts ... theres nothing to talk about unless you start asking questions etc on the facts he posted (for example i made a topic a while ago mentioning some ops the British planned on doing, cited a bunch of stuff i knew from resarch on the subject then asked did anyone have any more and if anyone though they could have worked).

But at the same time i made a topic a while ago with some stuff i had just found out from a new book, i thought some of the stuff which was mentioned was intrested so i made a topic and slapped it all in.
Not really expecting a debat on anything, just to be i dunno somewhat helpful.

[DarkCanuck]

Facts are the basis of history. they can be 'stuffy and boring' but they are essential in forming debates and theories. you can never get enough facts.

[2ltben]

Primary Sources. Primary Sources. Primary Sources. If you think they can be stuffy and boring, read through some journals or after-action reports and reevaluate that assessment.

[Vash]

History does have to come from fact and cannot just be randomly debated based on what the person feels the history should be. It is (in most cases) the most accurate recollection of what occured in the past and must be supported by facts.

The closest I believe I can come to agreeing with "history is meant to be debated" is this quote:

"History is nothing but a fable agreed upon." -Napoleon Bonaparte

[enigma]

Primary Sources. Primary Sources. Primary Sources. If you think they can be stuffy and boring, read through some journals or after-action reports and reevaluate that assessment.

memoirs are great :D (although can be sad :( )

[ThomasStewart]

Ok, as the forum "history guy" for 44, and as an amature historian, I have to agree that debate isnt always a bad thing, we researchers debate and so to do historians - its proffesionally labled historiography. BUT what "gets my goat" is when certain people who arent clued up enough start to debate with you...you then end up with the first diagram completely bastardised into:

Theory -> Debate -> Theory -> Debate -> Theory

So really debate can be a bad thing to do with history when combined with a little knowledge. As the old saying goes, 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'. So going back on track, IMHO debate between a series of say historians can be good because the readers have a wealth of opinions (some agreeing, some not) to choose from. But unfortunately like most things, historiographies have a bad side to them; all historians put their spin on things...its natural to do so....but sometimes historians opinions and historiography can become mixed up with modern influences and moralities etc.

Take my recent coursework on Dresden....David Irving wrote one of the first famous books upon the raid....but with little evidence and post war social (anti-war feeling) and economic effects it affected his opinion upon the raid. He made an opinion which has sparked off debate with historians throughout the world which with 40 years after his book has ended with the answer something like this:

"its war, each side did terrible things, you cant measure mutual imorality, but who would you rather have won?"

To debate essentially means to put your spin on something, and I think nower days historians are trying to turn away from debating and more towards recording or factual evidence that you cant argue with. We also have far more tools available these days with which to find the truth, digital archiving, CG recreation, physical reproduction, release of secret documents etc etc. Its getting to the point where debate is not so important as it used to be.

[2ltben]

The problem with that is that narrative history sells more than just base historiography, and not everyone is Antony Beevor or Cornelius Ryan. Take Stephen Ambrose, when he writes he writes from a perspective. He more often than not takes the side of that perspective as the "good guys", and there are few exceptions in his works. Hell, sometimes he portrays other units of the same military as the "bad guys".

The important thing about history is that there can never, never be such a thing as the "good guys" or "bad guys". People are only just starting to understand this about the Second World War, but there's still quite a ways to go when it comes to units like the SMERSH or SS.

And enigma, I highly suggest reading the journal of John Smith during the first years of Jamestown, probably the modernized version. He had a larger ego than most of Hollywood, such as when he battles of "hundreds" of "savages", using one as a shield, and being only shot in the thigh "a little." One of the funniest works of history I've ever read.

[aag567]

Well I read a "fun facts" thread on another forum I found it fun to read.

[permanent666]

sorry sani but i cannot take you serious if you quote this revisionist nazi irving!

[ThomasStewart]

sorry sani but i cannot take you serious if you quote this revisionist nazi irving!

I think you need to re-read my post, seeing the words David Irving shouldnt automatically make you see red. His (famous) holocaust denile came after he wrote the book "The destruction of Dresden". If you read 'Firestorm the bombing of Dresden', you will see that most of the historians acknowledge Irvings initial works upon Dresden; his book starts well but becomes too distorted by his opinion and spin on things...which is not surprising as he is (as we now know) a right-wing author who didnt have all the facts at hand. His works sparked off interest and debate amongst historians throughout the world, which has now finally led to a more accurate depicting of events, without a moral judgement clogging up the analysis.

[Kaos]

sorry sani but i cannot take you serious if you quote this revisionist nazi irving!

Hmm David Irving refutes the holocaust occured to the extent that is widely publicised and that makes a Nationalistic Socialist? Does that mean National Geographic are "Nazi"?

So the debate begins.