In common sense would suggest that they do exist, but according to presentism, it states that they don’t exist. How can the past not exist when past-tense sentences like “Nixon was the president of the 20th century” or “Abraham Lincoln stopped slavery” exists? In the third premises, Grey states that no one can travel to somewhere that doesn’t exist. If the no destination argument were a sound... ... middle of paper ... ...inning but later travels to the past from the future, the traveler has changed the past with his presence. Dowe explains this paradox by explaining that there are two different timelines, two different pasts.
Takaki wrote a great article on culture diversity. It is always going to be different outlooks on an issue like this; for most part I agree with Takaki in terms of doing his own research on American history and not conforming to just the history and ideology that was taught to him. Woodward was being dismissive of Takaki’s opinions and beliefs because of the fact that they were not in line with his. Woodward is stuck in time when it comes to looking at the things and does not want to evolve and think outside the box as far as American history and cultural
The Stereotyped Portrayal of Columbus in 1492: Conquest of Paradise There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism. Walter Benjamin, "Theses On The Philosophy Of History," 256.  Walter Benjamin in Illuminations reminds his readers that each history of civilization is tainted by barbarism since the prevailing civilization's history is dependent upon the suppression and eradication of alternative histories that might challenge the legitimacy of the existing civilization's rule. The problem with traditional history that asserts a stance of "objectivity," according to Benjamin, is that it overlooks how the existing powers-that-be superimpose upon past events a history that justifies the present ideological structure's control; or, put more simply, history is always viewed through the biased lenses of the victor. Colonization and history go hand and hand.
He realizes that this may be a slightly naïve idea however he still stands by this belief even when others such as Keith Jenkins have totally given up on objectivity. Keith Jenkins in his article "What is history" sets outs his opinion on why objectivity is in fact impossible to achieve in the study of history. His perception is that that "actual past has gone" and in its place we have created history in the present and that the "content is as much invented as found." His theory is that a historian cannot escape his or her own preconceived ideas and personal motives to the extent that history could be written in an objective way. He goes as far to set out the steps and within the reasons why historians write the way they do.
The measures made to ensure the king does not have absolute power are not enough to prevent him from ultimately getting his way no matter what that may be. On page 27 Paine tells how the king made the declaration that there will be no law unless put in place by himself. This effort to make the colonists powerless as to how they are governed is tyranny. Paine’s also argues that this event shows how Britain believes America has become too powerful and is trying to slow its growth and development (27). Those who are in parliament so far away from the tragic events that take place in America who live in such a vastly different world are too ignorant to make judgements for America (23).
Investigating the Extent to Which Historians Can Be Objective ‘You have reckoned that history ought to judge the past and to instruct the contemporary world as to the future. The present attempt does not yield to that high office. It will merely tell you how it really was’ - Leopold Von Ranke ‘There are no facts, only interpretations’ – Nietzsche Here we encounter two diametrically opposed views concerning objectivity. It can be argued that “true” objectivity cannot exist, as history is more exposed to differing interpretations than any other discipline and to be “factual”, dispassionate or truly objective would be at best unrealistic and at worst impossible. Historians, in their selective analysis of the past on the basis of surviving historical records and evidence, draw conclusions, which must necessarily be subject to their own individual interpretations – interpretations that are in turn subject to the historians’ own individual ideologies.
Progressive Historians One must decide the meaning of "progressive historiography." It can mean either the history written by "progressive historians," or it can mean history written by historians of the Progressive era of American history and shortly after. The focus that was chosen for this paper is more in keeping with the latter interpretation, if for no other reason than it provides a useful compare-and-contrast "control" literature. The caveat is this: the focus of this report is on the predominant question of the historiographical period: was the war a revolution or a war for independence? One could choose many other questions to argue, questions that historians have for years disputed about the revolution, but there are a number of reasons why this report was chosen for this particular assignment; the two best follow.
In general, historians learn to select the various events that they believe to be valid. Historians must face the fact that there is an “accurate” interpretation of the past ceases to exist because interpretation itself is based on the experience of the historian, in which people cannot observe directly (Gaddis 10). Historians can only view the past in a limited perspective, which generates subjectivity and bias, and claiming a piece of history to be “objective” is simplistic. Seeing the world in a multidimensiona... ... middle of paper ... ... in history. There is no real objective aspect to history, but a multitude of attitudes towards history can make history a discipline that allows for multidimensionality.
Langguth did not include in his book, Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence, any international aspect that might influence the War of 1812. Daughan’s book includes important land battles such as the one on Bladensburg that took place in order to defend Washington City; the convenient American triumph on New Orleans and the negotiations for the treaty of peace on Ghent. At the end, the author implies the importance of the War of 1812 as the major reason for political union in the republic which favored to establish strong military and naval forces. This last statement coincides greatly with the conclusion of the book of Langguth about the sense of unity after the War of 1812. Furthermore, the third book, which is Don’t Give Up the Ship!
Rather than making any correlation between violence and the “no duty to retreat” doctrine, Brown simply strings together unrelated incidents. Because of this, it is recommended that the reader use No Duty to Retreat as an introduction to the matter of violence in nineteenth century America rather than being an authority on the matter. Reviewed by: Lesley Keller Works Cited Brown, Richard Maxwell. No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.