ToK: History Journal

683 Words2 Pages

History is an interesting human science because it often relies on narratives in order to piece together the past. Naturally, flaws in human memory and perception can be attributed to limitations and biases that may be presented by historical evidence. For this reason, history is often said to be written by the “winners” of wars, simply because they are the ones who survived, and they are the ones who will be telling the narratives of the past. Through natural selection, we can be considered as offspring of the genetically superior; therefore, it can be somewhat fair to say that only the history of our direct ancestors is pertinent.
However, this does not mean we should necessarily be neglecting the “losers” of history in our knowledge of the world. If we are able to extract important lessons from history, then we should actually be focusing on our failures rather than our successes (by focusing on the latter, we may get too arrogant). For instance, the zeitgeist of the modern era and the epitome of capitalist entrepreneurship, Steve Jobs, is known for his successes, but his failures are what illuminate him as a great person. If he had not been ironically rejected by his company in 1985, Jobs’ story, and our perception of him, would have dramatically changed. A biography full of failures is also easier to relate to, because as humans, we fail multiple times a day, but we are rarely able to savor the taste of success. By relating themselves to great figures of the past and the present, humans are able to find consolation, and the historical narrative can become much more personal and relatable.
So why does history only shed the spotlight towards the people who held power? My hypothesis is related with the nature of how history is...

... middle of paper ...

...s of history. For instance, if we want to extract a moral from our past, we should be able to filter certain things and possibly reject information that may challenge our current values. In Atwood’s novel, the professor says that we (as the audience) must not judge Gilead too harshly (for they may have not known better or there may have been differences in values or cultures). However, this attitude of moral relativism can also defeat the principle purpose of history. If we are ready to accept different opinions and moralistic values, then Gilead may rise again. Instead of extracting a lesson from our past, we may slowly come to accept it. And I think this is what Atwood fears the most. By showing a satirical representation of an academic gathering, I believe that Atwood is trying to say how there is room for subjectivity even in an area of knowledge like history.

Open Document