Most historians aim to report on history without bias, but is it really possible to be objective? It is often said that history is written by the winners; are the winners capable of stepping back and writing history from a neutral point of view, or are they only capable of writing from their own?
History can be written objectively
History isn't solely written by the winners. It is true that the history books in a winner's country will be written from the winner's point of view, but it is also true that history books in the loser's country will be written from the loser's point of view. Somewhere along the line, someone unbiased will come along and create an account of history based on fact-checking and reviewing both accounts. History can be written objectively, because writing history is collaborative and a collective of all the world's views, interpretations, and opinions.
History cannot be written objectively
History is indeed written by the winners, and it will always be told from the winners' point of view. If the losers had won, history would be told a different way. The winners will always glorify their own victory in one way or another, and will interpret the losers' loss differently than if it had happened the other way around. Different cultures will also interpret events in different ways. One might see a victory as divine intervention, while the other might see it as a demonstration of the power of the winner. History cannot be written objectively for these reasons and more.
Explore this question in a whole new way.
This page was last edited on Tuesday, 29 Dec 2020 at 16:23 UTC
