Individual Meanings of History

Throughout the exploration of different textbooks and sources, I have come to the conclusion that the notation of the big event in history are generally agreed upon and the same, but, the perception of how and why they occurred tend to differ based on whatever particular bias or background the author has. Therefore, I have concluded that history is merely a combination of reporting of event with interjecting opinions. Even with primary sources in contrast to secondary sources, it is almost impossible to tell whether or not there is true objectivity from the reporter. The issue with secondary sources is that it relies on primary sources which are based on principles besides the facts, and the more that sources remove from the event, there becomes a greater diffusion of the information which makes it harder to differentiate between facts and opinions. When we examined the time period being reported on in the different texts, it becomes relatively clear that the amount of reporting that is done per time frame is largely influenced by the author attributes to that time period; if they think one time frame is more significant than the other, they will focus much more on what they feel the more prominent point is rather than one they feel is mostly ineffective to history. We are studying their interpretation of history to get a firm understanding of what they think is significant, and contrast their understanding with our own in order to establish a foundation on which to expand on. Similarly, when investigating world and regional coverage, there is a general agreement on the regions of the globe in which effective and historic events occurred. But, the detail in which the report goes into relies solely on the author’s interest and bias towards one specific area of the world where a historical event took place. The historian is the one who makes the decision about what is described beyond the general scope of things, and how the descriptions will be carried and divided out. Taking this all into account, as we study history, we have to understand that we are studying it secondhand and even more remotely; it is merely the study of another’s study of history, i.e. historiography. While we can be sure that most historical events actually happened, we can never be completely sure on how or why they happened. As a history student, the most important thing for us to keep in mind is to know that information that we are presented with will most likely be subjective rather than objective, and that we must look at the study of history macroscopically rather than microscopically, examining patterns and themes rather than just mere facts, as they relate to certain historical events. We study history to analyze the relationship  between present events and past historical events, and to make decisions about individually creating and shaping the future. In order to do so, we must look beyond the opinions and thoughts of other historians and develop an individual sense of what history means to us, why it is important to study, and use it to become part of history ourselves.