TOK History Essay

Nina Deoras

A fable is a story with characters, plots, dilemmas and a definite conclusion. The same could be said about history. However, a writer who creates fables does so out of imagination, whereas history is created based on hard evidenceor so we think. We may believe that what historians present to us is the truth about events in history, but how can we know for sure? Is history, too, just a story, a fable, with a few facts that have been turned into theories and wiled into belief by the public so it can be made into history? History is vast, theres no doubt about that, but is it precise? Most history, shown in our school textbooks or on the History Channel, have a certain amount of evidence to back the theories they present, but historians only look at this history from one perspective. Hence, their conclusions may not be completely correct. As a result, what we deem to be the history of, for example, the Cold War, may only come from one persons, one countrys, or one positions perspective. Therefore, we only hear one side of the story and believe it to be history. People then believe this story, and hence a fable is fabricated. Historians create a theory, research on them and once enough evidence is found to prove, or disprove, this theory, they present it to the public. If the public agrees, then this theory can be actual history. Historians believe that Homers epics The Iliad and The odyssey are sources that depict the events that occurred in ancient Greece at that time. However, how can we be so sure that these pieces of evidence really depicted the siege? Historians believe that these epics were written, to some extent, to record historical events. But how do we know that this was the actual recounting of the epics? The Trojan War seems to be largely theorized from Homers epics. But his epic is nothing but a book, a piece of writing that could very well be Fiction. It has a story, plots, dilemmas, and now historians are creating a definite conclusion. Do we know for sure that the Trojan War really happened? People tend to agree with these theories very quickly, rarely looking at the theory from a different perspective. The only significant evidence of this war has come from

TOK History Essay

Nina Deoras

Homer, though there has been archeological evidence in Troy today. So, to some extent, one could argue that the history of the Trojan War, could have been developed due to a confirmation bias. Historians wanted to believe that Homer was recounting a historical event, and hence were trying to convince them of this theory by relating any evidence to it. For example, archeologists have been trying to find evidence of a civilization that existed in the time of the Trojan War. Though the excavation has found civilizations and cemeteries, we cant assume that it linked with the Trojan War. However, Historians may be keen to add this evidence to support their theories. Hence we have a biased view of a historically significant event. Sometimes, certain evidence is so strong that the public has no option but to agree with the theories, and rightly so. Conclusions can be drawn from these pieces of evidence and hence history can be created. For example, one cant deny that Anne Franks Diary indicated the way her family struggled through the Second World War. Unlike Homers The Iliad Annes diary is of a personal recount in her life. Though one could argue that the events may not necessarily have occurred in the way the books depicted, it is certain that there was a diary, with evidence to suggest the theory that was based on her life: that she went into hiding, and was caught. There is also, more evidence to suggest that Annes stories existed. The hideout was found, her clothes that she described in her books were found, and photos of her in the hideout were found as well. This would prove to be greater evidence that might make the audience realize that her life story was not a fable, but a reality. History relies heavily on reasoning. Since we cannot gather every scrap of evidence to support a historical argument, we must deduce the evidence given to us to create a conclusion. Deductive reasoning has many advantages, but mostly, we are trying to validate a probably false theory. When writing the biography about Mr. Aiken, a school teacher, we were faced with lack of

TOK History Essay

Nina Deoras

certain evidence. For example, we were given that he had lived in Brazil at some point in his life, and that he had gotten married there, before having his children and moving to India. Though the exact date of Mr. Aikens marriage was unknown, we used deductive reasoning, based on the years he lived in Brazil, and the year his daughter was born, to figure out when he had gotten married. This deduction proved to be quite false when we later uncovered the truth. Though in history, it is often tempting to deduce the conclusions of an event, whether it is someones date of marriage or the victory of a war, it is often an incorrect method to uncovering the truth of the situation, thereby hindering the validity of the historical event. Mathematics is an Area of Knowledge which is quite different from History. Upon a mathematical question, we are given some clues, or rather evidence, much like historical evidence, and are then encouraged to use reasoning in order to create the answer. For example, if we take the Pythagorean Theorem, which states that, the sum of the square of the legs of a right-angled triangle equals the square of its hypotenuse, we can solve a proof, if given the proper information, to obtain the answer. No matter how many different questions we take, which would represent different perspectives, or different pieces of evidence, we would always prove the Pythagorean Theorem right. So why doesnt that happen in History? Why cant we just agree on the evidence given to us? The answer is really quite simple: we lack perspective. The American Indian War was retold through the generations by, none other than, the Americans. But where is the other perspectives evidence? History suggests that the Northern Indian tribes sided with the British Crown out of fear of the colonialists1 but was that how they perceived it? We know from the European perspective how this happened, but it may not be the same theory for the Indian tribesmen. Though we may use different pieces of evidence, we are obtaining evidence from only one perspective,
1See bibliography
1

TOK History Essay

Nina Deoras

thereby creating bias in our conclusions. Therefore, can we really say that the Indian tribes in the North were afraid of the Colonialists and hence sided with the Crown? Much of history is a story, with minimal evidence, that we just learn to accept. However, we never know how valid it can be. Perspective is dire for obtaining the most valid of conclusions. It is necessary to hear both sides of the fable in order to turn it into a story, and eventually History.

TOK History Essay

Nina Deoras

Bibliography
Wooster, R. (n.d.). American Indian Wars. Retrieved September 2011, from History.com: http://www.history.com/topics/american-indian-wars