One of the reasons that we must deal directly with history, not just through raw data, academic abstractions and generalizations but through the physical testimonies of the real people who actually experienced it, is that we must necessarily appreciate the personal and often the anecdotal to see how they square with expectations, to see whether and to what extent the data and the academic profiles (published in texts) account for essential nuances and accurately represent the truth in its knowable totality.
We must admit information that might dispute or contradict the conceptions of the present day, where the analyses (or revisions) are naturally always taking place: conceptions inevitably altering (and reflecting) our perspectives on (and attitudes toward) history; conceptions constantly evolving, not always for the better and not always for the benefit of the truth; and conceptions always limited by the prevailing or preferred theories, models, and indeed subjective prejudices of the “science” in practice.
Comments
Post a Comment