AOK History Tyler Handin
Ahmed, Angela, Eduard
March 28 - April 3
AOK Badge History
Emotional bias and what distinguishes a better historical account from a worse one.
EQ: What distinguishes a better historical account from a worse one?
The problems about this question is there are many different views an opinions about how history unfolded. Many biases and misconceptions that become topics of discussions and essentially shape the way we view history. On the other hand, there are history textbooks that have less bias and more factual evidence because they have hindsight. Both are valuable depending on the person and what they are trying to find. We want to prove that for someone who wants to discover the cultural, societal, and raw aspects of the time period; first hand accounts with lots of bias is a great way of seeing how someone was thinking at the time. However, if you want to discover the overarching facts of the situation, a historical account with little bias is more helpful. In order to prove this, we are going to analyze different documentations of historical events. One could be while it was ongoing and emotions are running high, and the other could be at a later time with hindsight and data.
Today we decided how we would explore what distinguishes a better historical account from a worse one. We will be taking two accounts written about the events of 9/11. One is very factual based and focuses on what happened, and the other has many quotes and accounts from survivors. They are very different formats but they each have their own values and limitations depending on what you are looking for.
Also I read a book about the events of 9/11 and it was very eyeopening and a learned many new things about it which I did not know about beforehand. It cleared up a lot of misconceptions.
The main point that we want to make in our presentation is that there is no ‘better' way to retell history. It all depends on what you are looking to get out of the history.
Personally I hope to gain a deeper understanding of History as an AOK and how it relates to us a a society.
What distinguishes a better historical account from a worse one?
It all depends on what you are looking for. Some accounts of history are more factual and focus on the events while others are more personal with quotes and accounts from the people who were there. Depending on what you are studying or what you are trying to find changes what sources you will value more.
It all depends on what you are looking for because different accounts focus on different aspects.
I believe our presentation went very well. We were able to provide the information to our audience in a very coherent manner. Overall, our group worked very well together and there was no major issues.
How does a historian assess the reliability of sources?
What is a fact in history?
Is it possible for historical accounts to be free form perspective?
I believe this would be a good essential reading because it talks about bias and the values it can hold. Depending on how you look at the work and what you do with it bias can actually be valuable for a historian.