free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

abhatia · Joined: 26 Jan 2011 Posts: 37

How objective are first hand accounts? What are we looking for when we seek out first hand accounts of historical events?

Free Forum

mkim2013 · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 9

Not only in this account but on every stories in the world, it is impossible to not to have any subjective voice. In other words, in every stories, there always will be biased view. Some may try to be as objective as possible but it is inevitable to be subjective in some perspective. For example, in the reading when the man is interviewed by the narrator, particularly when describin the picture in the "Box for the Belongings of the Deceased", although it was obvious that it was a horrible war scene, the man had described his son as a hero. Moreover, later one of the professor mentions that no matter who the narrator asks, everyone will give the same boring story. He adds, "Its too late to talk about crucial issues. people's memories of those years had long faded, and emphasized again that the improtant stories, those that moved events in the war years, were no longer obtainable" (101). Without any historical records to support one's story, it is even more impossible to have objectivity.

wlotas2013 · Joined: 14 Nov 2011 Posts: 20

Primary sources are prone to bias especially personal accounts. Important events may be reflected in a negatively due to the author's current emotional state or resentment towards the subject matter. The objective when searching through personal accounts differs depending upon the "side" you wish to observe. If we want to examine a Japanese officers perspective concerning the Rape of Nanking, we should find an account written by a Japanese Officer. A third, nuetral party would yield the purest information due to a lack of affiliation with either side.

JasonJeong · Joined: 20 Oct 2011 Posts: 13

In first hand accounts, we should look for factual details that can only be told by a person who experienced the situation. Such details may even include the opinion of the victim and the opinion of the doer. The only thing we should watch out for is determining which side is right/wrong. Naturally, first hand accounts are strongly biased (even ones written by a third party member will be biased, because the third party writer will feel for one side or the other) and it is unjust for us to determine the absolute justice of the situation.

Yqi2013 · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 21

Objectiveness sometimes is not as important when we try to examine how the war affected people's lives. Unlike natural science, history is the science of humanity. One cannot separate historical events from the impact those events bring to the society. People's emotions and concerns can largely affect their ways of accounting the events, and their perspectives are very personal. Often times the accounters do not relate their personal experiences to the historical context, and that's what makes first hand accounts valuable. The subjectiveness of the stories give the readers or listeners a real touch on how a human being's life is influenced by the war. War is not all about dates and locations; it's also about the spirits and minds of the people. It's very disappointing to see that Japan's younger generation don't know much about the war their country involved. It is crucial to learn one's country's past, both the good and the bad. Japan should not merely pass on its glories; its infamous deeds should also be exposed and talked about in public. The young Japanese should know about the wars and learn from them. The miseries that Japan created shall never be repeated.

rpulak2012 · Joined: 03 Dec 2011 Posts: 9

Everything in history has a bias. There is no pure truth of what happened that exists in the telling of one account. This is not to say that primary sources are useless, in fact, quite to the contrary, they are nessecary to gain an understanding of the true events. Like Warren said, a third party would be most appropriate account to reference for historical events. However, this isn't usually possible- even observers have some sort of bias. Take for example Nanjing. It could be that a large amount of what was done there was purely for psycological warfare, in which case it worked- because the casual observer sympathies with the victims, the Chinese. It could have also just been mass acts of violence. There also are probably a select few psychopaths who see the acts of the Japanese in Nanjing as "good sport" which is why we cannot always trust third parties either. The reason we look for primary sources is because the mean of all the accounts of an event is almost exactly the most accurate interpretation of the events that occurred, and although we can't get all the accounts of what happened, we can get a small sample to get, hopefully, a good approximation of what happend.

squashie · Joined: 07 Sep 2011 Posts: 22

In first hand accounts, I think it is difficult to be objective while still remaining true to the facts of what happen. Like this first hand account, the person telling the story was clearly emotionally attached to the event. In cases like this, I think that the narrator strays away from facts and focuses on how they were impacted by the event.

In looking for first hand accounts of historical events we need to look for facts and how much that article stays true to the details of that event. It's not a bad thing to have some attachment or impact and express that in the account but it's best that the narrator stays true to that event. We also look to see what tone is coming through and if the narrator is for a side or remains neutral. This wil definitely help in determining the reason for a specific outcome of an event and whether this person would've been beneficial or detrimental to that situation.

fxin · Joined: 17 Feb 2011 Posts: 10

When we look at first hand documents or text about a certain historical event, we have to be extremely careful and understand the circumstances that the author is in, the side that he/she is on. As much as we all like to ignore it, personal accounts, especially personal texts like journals, diaries, and notebooks. When we look at first hand accounts, we must have the author's stand point in the back of our head. We should never look at a first hand document as a primary

resource for any historical account. We need to know the unbiased accounts and then dive into these first hand accounts. We need to look for why the author wrote what they did. The reason why they would put emphasis on certain things than others. If we take a look at first hand accounts of both sides of the event we might see where certain things start to overlap and where parts are left out. Then we can proceed to distinguish if they were left out on purpose. Thus providing us with a better understanding of history.

shawks · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 13

Every document has some bias in it. You can never really predict how accurate even the most credible textbooks are, but first-hand accounts especially are less objective. That doesn't necessarily mean that the source is less reliable. After all, it captures more of the emotions of a specific time than secondary sources. But if the story focuses too much on internal conflicts and not enough on the external context, it's less reliable. When authors of memoirs describe what they saw going on, though, given that they are truthful people, the images are likely to be more accurate than someone later on, who never experienced the conflict, giving a detailed account. Often, textbooks won't give emotional and violent parts of history the respect they deserve, particularly the rape victims in Nanjing and the Holocaust victims.

lizzieyang · Joined: 26 Jan 2011 Posts: 14

I greatly value first hand accounts. Still, I would never read something from only one perspective. First hand accounts are beneficial when I read many of them from various viewpoints. I really appreciate having first hand accounts, especially articles or diary written before because I can then find some missing puzzle pieces in history that objective writing will never provide. Although, I grew up learning about bad stereotypes on Japanese and all the wrongdoings they have done, I have absolutely no hatred or bad feelings about Japanese people, as individuals. Honestly, Japanese people are not responsible for all the unfortunate events. People tend to build up power and greed when they gather together as a group. It is Japanese government that is still responsible for the damages it has done and that owes apologies to many countries.

jgottesdiener2013@csw.org · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 4

First hand accounts are very objective. When you read a first hand account going into it you need to know their is going to be a bias. As you read a first hand account dont only focus on what you are reading but also see what is not mentioned, because most of the time what is left out can be the most important.

Vsylva2012 · Joined: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 6

First hand accounts are not inherently objective or NOT objective. They are simply "accurate" in that they are raw and unprocessed takes on an event which occurred. (Meaning like how in the game "Telephone" the message gets warped as you go along). But this does not mean they cannot be objective in the sense they are unbiased or unprejudiced.
In the case of Japanese massacres in Nanging, one who recounts what was going on from either side might see it in a different way depending on what they were taught was happening regardless of what they actually saw. Thus first hand accounts are important and helpful to understanding how something in history happened, and in a way THE ONLY WAY we begin to know how anything happened. Yet it is important to gather many accounts from many perspectives to ensure accuracy of the "picture you are trying to paint".

Free Forum