"It is said that history is an objective record of past events. However, many will argue that it is biased towards the view of those who write it." What is your view?
“Do not forget history if you want to respect your national heroes!”. This statement by President Soekarno is true, but if the history is not written accurately, will you still believe it? In my opinion history is biased towards the view of those who write it. Why?
First, history is not always written by independent writers. Often, history is written by a historian or a group of historians who are appointed and paid by an incumbent in the government. In this case, a historian does not usually act as an independent expert who should be fair in writing history. As a professional historian he should collect as many data and documents as he can and confirm them with trusted resources to make it more valid and more accurate. However, paid-historians will in fact limit the resources and confirm with persons who will endorse only the history approved by the incumbent who gave them the task.
Second, history is often used by an incumbent in the government to exaggerate his role in certain events in national history. The main objective of blowing up his role in certain events is he wants to keep his position longer. To blow up his role, he will try to minimize or to make unclear the role of somebody else in history. For example, in the history of the era of post-independence of the Republic of Nirvana, Ximano, the second President of the Republic of Nirvana, inflated his role in an important battle in Ayu City, even though many people knew that the most important person at that conflict was Sultan Wiseman, the Sultan of Ayu City at that time. In this case, it is obvious that the intention of Ximano by doing this was to make him more popular in Nirvana history so that the Nirvana people would always respect him and as a result he was able to maintain his position as president for a long period.
It is clear then from the example above that an account of history can be influenced and manipulated for personal reasons. Thus, it is only when history is written by disinterested experts and confirmed by independent sources that it can be said to be reliable.
“Do not forget history if you want to respect your national heroes!”. This statement by President Soekarno is true, but if the history is not written accurately, will you still believe it? In my opinion history is biased towards the view of those who write it. Why?
First, history is not always written by independent writers. Often, history is written by a historian or a group of historians who are appointed and paid by an incumbent in the government. In this case, a historian does not usually act as an independent expert who should be fair in writing history. As a professional historian he should collect as many data and documents as he can and confirm them with trusted resources to make it more valid and more accurate. However, paid-historians will in fact limit the resources and confirm with persons who will endorse only the history approved by the incumbent who gave them the task.
Second, history is often used by an incumbent in the government to exaggerate his role in certain events in national history. The main objective of blowing up his role in certain events is he wants to keep his position longer. To blow up his role, he will try to minimize or to make unclear the role of somebody else in history. For example, in the history of the era of post-independence of the Republic of Nirvana, Ximano, the second President of the Republic of Nirvana, inflated his role in an important battle in Ayu City, even though many people knew that the most important person at that conflict was Sultan Wiseman, the Sultan of Ayu City at that time. In this case, it is obvious that the intention of Ximano by doing this was to make him more popular in Nirvana history so that the Nirvana people would always respect him and as a result he was able to maintain his position as president for a long period.
It is clear then from the example above that an account of history can be influenced and manipulated for personal reasons. Thus, it is only when history is written by disinterested experts and confirmed by independent sources that it can be said to be reliable.
