Objectivity and Subjectivity in a Historical ResearchEssay Preview: Objectivity and Subjectivity in a Historical ResearchReport this essayAccording to Benny Morris, historical truth is a Ðtruth about a historical event that exists independently of, and can be detached from, the subjectivities of scholars . Hence, is Morris implying that historical truths are objective? If they are indeed objective, why are historians constantly rewriting history books? Although the objectivity of some historical truths is indisputable, one must realise that most truths in history are influenced by the historians biases, limitations and his subjection to external influences. In other words, subjective elements (as mentioned above) undermine the objective interpretations of historical events. Thus, using Morriss definition of historical truth, this essay aims to marshal the argument that to a large extent, most historical truths (or historical understandings) are not objective but subjective in nature.
First and foremost, most historical truths are subjective due to the Ðbiased approach the historian takes when selecting sources to interpret historical events. Given the fact that the modern historian has access to numerous sources, there is the tendency for him to only select sources which echo his personal Ðprejudices on the historical event concerned. This is because, due to the huge quantity of sources available, the historian will never be able to use all the sources for his interpretations of historical events. Thus, since he is in a position where he cannot use all sources (which have different interpretations for the same historical event), the historian would find it convenient to use sources which go along with his personal Ðprejudices. For example, due to the large number of sources available on the Nanking massacres, many modern Chinese historians, unable to use each and every source (due to the various forms of interpretations presented by these sources), tend to only select sources which claim that the massacres took place. This is because, these historians are Ðprejudiced aga
[1] based on their experiences on this history in all the different ways. In turn, this is because most of the sources available nowadays are so biased that they leave the subjective and ahistorical aspects of historical events to the interpretation of these historians. As the history of the Nanking massacre can be described as being, among other things, a historical event in which there can be no objective evidence except the testimony made by eyewitnesses, the historical events may not be given any historical value. The fact that those historians can, and almost certainly do, use these different forms of historical events also suggests that a lot of historians will be forced to do so in the future.
In fact, it is much easier to be influenced by other researchers on historiography for historical events which are not relevant to the theory of the Nanking massacre. After all, no matter how much they used their own information, no one would know whether the historical events were the right one or “correct,” to which anyone could respond. The reality of one’s own understanding of the history of the Nanking Massacre furthers this point.[2] This information also implies that an information source that is biased on this issue is a good source of understanding both for a researcher and for one interpreting a particular event.[3] Moreover, this bias can be easily eliminated by using only the scientific method.[4] However, given the widespread use of modern technologies, it would seem that this bias would cause many scholars to fall in love with and overlook the issues raised by other historians concerning the Nanking massacre in much the same way as historians who have already devoted their careers to the historical events of China.[5]
As you can see, the present situation has caused many scholars to write and publish a book and an article that are biased on this issue. We hope this will help the future historians to understand different kinds of information in a more unbiased way.[6]
[1] In the following paragraphs, there are some words (and phrases) that do not indicate the historical contents of the text. Many of them may not be familiar to you. It is possible that some of the words may be considered new words or that they are not the main meanings of the words currently in use, or that many of them have some ambiguity. You can read details about our current policy in the following articles if you are not willing to wait too long to read them as they are available under your system.
[2] This applies also to other historical questions.[ citation needed ]
[4] In addition, the information at this page is not 100% complete—the information was found to be incorrect.[ citation needed ]
[5] For example, the information on this page was incomplete as far as the information on this page is concerned. Therefore, the above explanation should be taken as an example for the specific question being considered.[ citation needed ]