Thoughts on perspective

 Sorry for the late post. I will try to make up for it by making it nice and long.

During the discussions we have had in class in the past couple of weeks, I have come to understand what is meant by the notion that history is "constructed". At first it was hard for me to agree with such blunt statements as "history is the convenient blend of truth and fancy" or "history does not have to be exact" (Becker), but I do recognize that it is easy to put a spin on history without even trying. One thing I realized today while we were talking about FDR and the New Deal is that it is easy to see that history can have so many perspectives when one looks at recent history. We can still relate to the big debates about government involvement in business and the economy, and understand the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Its not as easy to pick out perspective when one looks at history of the ancient world that we understand so little about. Its much easier to argue and debate about the causes of the Great Depression than the Sumerians.
One quote that I have really come to agree with as an aspiring educator is from Part III of the Becker article,

…  "...to suppose that facts, once established in all their fullness, ‘will speak for themselves’, is an illusion”.

I believe that in general, only professional historians can derive meaning from pure facts and data. It takes a great amount of effort and time to interpret and understand historical facts. Mr. Everyman will not know what to do when presented with a bunch of facts. Thus, Mr. Everyman must be presented with already interpreted facts. Same goes for students. Although I think its important for a teacher to expose his or her students to the idea that facts can be interpreted, as well as help them learn to make their own interpretations and draw conclusions.

Another interesting quote regarding facts and interpretation is from the Oakeshott article:
“First, because we nowhere find facts in so simple a state as can warrant us to take them as the only truth. Conflicting facts arise; and we are forced to choose. History is necessarily a matter of selecting and rejecting, of weighing and balancing”.

I agree with this statement, but think that every historian should be conducting this process with a clear conscience, recognizing that other interpretations might exist, and not completely discarding facts that do not match his/her theory. 

I also like what Mary said in this week's post:

"Learning that there is only one perspective limits the ability to think hypothetically and develop the ability to come up with innovative solutions". I think this is something all of us who are planing to teach should keep in mind. From my own experience as a student, I can think of classes that I have had where the teacher constantly pushed one perspective and never presented others in an even remotely positive light. Although the teacher would probably say otherwise, I do not think that was a class that taught anyone how to think critically. It was brainwashing more than anything else.