History and Truth

History gets a bad rap. Historians these days so often encase the most fabulous of stories in the drabbest apparel possible. I believe history serves two important functions primarily: to inspire us to love who we are and to prevent us from committing the same mistakes repeatedly. Our prior days would easily succeed at these two outcomes if historians hadn’t gone to pot and the public ceased to study the subject with any intent. I have never been less enthralled by any books than by the history textbooks I was forced to consume as a high schooler. Even Hemingway, whom I abhor, could not come close to the hellish experience of wading through The Enduring Vision, my US history textbook, and the book dubbed Gertrude and Bartholomew (actually, I don’t recall the two authors’ names, so these will have to suffice) by my European history class. I have nothing against the teachers of those classes, in fact, I rather enjoyed them. But the textbooks – complete refuse. Somehow they were justified by the breadth of information made available compared to other texts. But I say, bother the dates of so-and-so’s death. If I don’t lift my eyes from the textbook feeling the importance of my own history deep in my innards, but rather let my eyelids fall in stupefied slumber and drool proceed freely from my lips because of the utter boredom cast upon me, then the book is a failure, and the author should never again be consulted.

You see, harsh though I may seem, I absolutely love history, but I was never firmly sure of this truth until I encountered historians who were willing to add a bit of opinion to their interpretations without fear of scorn. History has become so wrapped up in unbiasedness that no one is willing to make a judgment or offer deeper significance to any event. In my opinion, it is the historian’s job to offer a pattern behind history, a logical series of events that explain why things happened, not just that they happened. It should then be the duty of the reader (or professor) to assess the validity of that historian’s interpretation. And the history should be interpreted in such a way that it can be applied to the present. For as we know, those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it.

Historians today seem to think it is good to prattle on endlessly about the common man, the everyday happenings of the peasants. Forgive me, but that is so unspeakably boring – how can anyone expect to catch the interest of a young boy with talk of the attire of a tanner in Plymouth? They want stories of war and glory, of adventure and triumph, even of loss and despair. But they simply don’t care about how many ounces of bread the average man ate daily in 1702. There’s a reason myths and fairy tales from ages past are still around, and there’s a reason why they still apply to current situations. History bears equally enthralling stories and applicable lessons if only we would teach them. All this nonsense about everyone’s perspective being equally valid has sucked the merit out of history. Truth is there, but it must be sought out and applied. That is why I love historians who are willing to offer their take on a situation, even if it is dead wrong, and actually believe what they say without shame. If they are wrong, and are proven so, I believe they would recognize their failure.

Here is an example of what I mean. Suppose I were to say the following, “Just as Christians killed countless ‘heretics’ before the Reformation took hold and slowly led to more peaceful sects and the resolution of doctrinal issues with fewer deaths, so Islam needs a reformation to end its violent sectarian nature.” Whether I am right or wrong, I am still opinionated and I am actively seeking truth. If instead I add the tag “but you may disagree; what is good for you is good for you,” then I have forsaken history. History is meant to be interpreted, and there are correct interpretations as well as false ones. But it is better to take an incorrect stance and willingly accept correction than it is to take no stance at all. At least if you take a stance you encourage others to find fault in it so that by and by your stance is honed and refined into something truly meritorious. If you allow for the correctness of all vantage points, no progress is ever made and you are left ignorant. Indeed, anyone would admit that it is foolish to say that 2+2=4 but that you may have your own equally correct opinion on the matter. People believing 2+2=5 need correction, not tolerance. I would rather be wrong from time to time taking an intellectual stand for something I hold true than fail to encourage inspection of truth by my fellow man; I do not want a society full of people willing to tolerate lies as relative truth.

Michael Ramsden, a smart fellow, quoted some other smart fellow about truth and it went something like this: if someone tells you there is no such thing as truth, he is asking you not to believe him, so don’t. Obviously that first clause cannot be ‘true’ if there is no such thing as truth, so there must be truth.

I am currently reading Black Lamb and Grey Falcon by Rebecca West, a sort of historical and cultural inspection of the Balkans via travelogue. It was written just as World War II was breaking out and West’s distaste for the Germans as a result is evident. Some believe that her bias taints her work too much to be considered good history. Although I have not read the entire work yet, her perception and understanding of history’s impact on the present is astounding and clear, and I much admire it. This is how history should be. It connects Balkan history back to Roman times and shows the clear sequence of events leading to current culture and attitudes. And what I especially enjoy is that she is very matter of fact: one event led to another, combined with another event, and voilà, a plausible reason why we have the current situation. She doesn’t beat around the bush or pander to her rivals; she clearly states her opinion as fact and moves on. It is clear that she would change her mind if you offered sufficient evidence to the contrary, but given the available information, she forms a blatant hypothesis and offers it in the face of all naysayers. This is the sort of history that inspires and the sort of writing that encourages others to find truth rather than admit all suggestions as reasonable. While all men are created equal, all ideas are not.

I would feel insufficient if I did not conclude with an equally direct statement. Thus, I will be clear. There is absolute truth. Regarding all truth as relative is an excuse to hide behind, an unwillingness to search and learn, an extreme laziness of mind. It is much easier to say everyone is equally right, and that’s why so many people do it. But it is simply ridiculous to say so and it yields nothing good. If all truth is relative, then how is it that Hitler or Stalin were wrong? It also seems that the relativists often have strong political leanings, but how is any politician better than another if there is no truth? It is all absurdity. Don’t fall for it. Have an opinion.