Ethics of rewriting history
THE recent controversy over the alleged misrepresentation of historical facts in a research paper published in a journal also raised the issue of manipulation of history.
The practice of rewriting history goes back a long way, and it is often done by those in power or those with connections and clout.
The Soviet Union, under the orders of Joseph Stalin, engaged in the falsification of a number of documents and photographs in an attempt to conceal “The Great Purge” that took place in 1937.
Revisionism was also visible in the many decades of denials of the atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers during World War II.
British former war leader Sir Winston Churchill noted that “History is always written by the victors” while Napoleon asserted that it is “a fable agreed upon”. These statements perfectly encapsulate the essence on how historical narratives can be influenced by perspectives and biases.
History revisionism is a double-edged sword. While it might stimulate one’s critical thinking and provide a more nuanced understanding of a particular historical event, an inaccurate take will be detrimental to one’s understanding of a nation’s history.
The necessity of rewriting historical events emerges in instances where the original narrative has been skewed or tampered with.
In the case of the Native Americans, for instance, revisionist historians are actively seeking to provide a more accurate and balanced re-telling of the accounts experienced by the indigenous people.
And in such instances, the rewriting of historical events is clearly warranted to further prevent any misinterpretation that could lead to bigger issues arising in the future.
While revising historical events can be necessary to correct misconceptions or provide a more nuanced understanding, it also risks distorting facts, leading to biased interpretations.
Knowledge plays a vital role in preventing these things from happening. It acts as a barrier to misinformation and misinterpretation, ultimately nurturing a well-informed public and a just and equitable society.
It is not just about absorbing facts. It is about developing critical thinking, fostering cultural awareness, and empowering people as a collective to actively engage with the past and the present.
The quest for historical truth is not without challenges, however. While the absence of a dominant power may allow a pathway for diverse perspectives to emerge, the outcome would be highly dependent on commitment to transparency and accuracy.
Historians, scholars and researchers are a fundamental component in researching history. An academic setting that is vibrant and encourages rigorous research that challenges historical narratives will contribute to the discovery of new truths.
Ultimately, maintaining historical integrity requires commitment to transparency, accuracy and the recognition of multiple viewpoints.
American historian Henry Steele Commager said: “History is a jangle of accidents, blunders, surprises and absurdities, and so is our knowledge of it, but if we are to report it at all, we must impose some order upon it.”
Historical events are often interpreted through the lens of one’s emotions. This significantly influences how the narratives are shaped and sometimes leads to the possible misalignment of objective facts.
Acknowledging this rather than claiming the truth as absolute ensures that the tradition of historical reinterpretation remains healthy.
When navigating the waters of historical discourse, we must exercise caution, recognising that we have the responsibility to uphold the truth and avoid manipulating history for personal gain.
I firmly believe that as time passes, history will reveal itself. This happens when time removes prejudice.
As long as there is prejudice in how history is interpreted, it will always have a biased angle.
The people who try to distort and manipulate history to fit a political or religious agenda are sadly the ones who end up being stained in the pages of history.