Understanding

historical
perspectives
Understanding historical perspectives is one of three pages in which we explore the way history
is fundamentally affected by different perspectives (see also Questioning Historical Perspectives,
and Key Thinkers on Historical Perspectives). This page is taken from the brilliant and pioneering
History Rising website, created by Ned Riley.

History Rising supports history teachers and students primarily – but not exclusively – involved in
the IB Diploma, offering a ‘manageably conceptual’ approach to the subject. Members of the
History Rising site can access and use over 100 history lessons, within arguably the most
inspiring, engaging, and innovative course for high school history currently available anywhere.

1. “You create a universe by perceiving it”

Perspective has a special place in history. Because the ‘gap’ between the historian and what they
are studying (ie. the past) can never be crossed, without the help of a time machine, the historian
is always reliant on the perspectives of others ie. the records that have been left by others, to
construct a narrative of the past. This lack of ability to directly observe makes history unique, and
gives perspectives their prominence.

That said, perspective plays a role in all subjects, and in our lives generally. As the Science
Fiction author Douglas Adams wrote, “Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all
is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you
perceive is specific to you.”

This ‘perception’ of the world, or perspective, or point of view, is influenced by numerous factors.
Ask anyone to list the influences on their point of view, and they will not struggle to list a huge
number of factors.

It is useful to think of the factors that influence our perspective along two axes. On one, we can
think of ‘personal’ and ‘non-personal’ factors, and on the other of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors.
Personal factors are those which are unique to an individual, such as their relationships, while
non-personal are those which are shared with a wider group, such as nationality. Internal factors
are those which are intrinsic to an individual, such as various forms of cognitive bias (check out
the Wikipedia page on cognitive bias – it is scary how many different forms exist!), and external
will be those that influence an individual from the outside, such as the political/economic system
they live in.

2. “The man on the Clapham omnibus”

It is also useful to think of all these factors existing on another scale, which runs from ‘impartial’ to
‘biased’. Of course, all individuals have a point of view, but in some situations (perhaps when we
serve on a Jury) we strive for as much impartiality as we can, whereas in others (perhaps when
we are supporting our football team) we are happy to embrace our bias.

The historians position should be, probably uncontroversially, closer to that of the Jury. We try to
“use” our perspective to make sense of the past. This is something that was explored in depth in
the court case between the historian Deborah Lipstadt, and the Holocaust denier David Irving. In
the court case, the judge Justice Gray attempted to create a working definition of an ‘impartial
historian’, and the result was six criteria (as published in the Yale Law Journal, here)

1. Treat sources with appropriate reservations

2. Never dismiss counter evidence without scholarly consideration

3. Avoid “cherry-picking” evidence

4. Clearly indicate any speculation

5. Not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents

6. Weigh the authenticity of all accounts

This kind of definition is one familiar in law, where there is even a phrase, ‘The man on the
Clapham omnibus’ (a very archaic term, meaning something like ‘the man on the street’), which is
used to describe a hypothetical ordinary, reasonable person.

3. “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”

However, the reality is that there are many instances when biases are embraced. This is,
undoubtedly, an ‘abuse’ of history for our own ends.

Perhaps no quote better highlights the way that perspectives can be abused in history than that
of Churchill’s famous claim that “history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”.

The quote suggests Churchill’s perspective on the past is strongly influenced by personal,
internal factors – to be polite, his own legacy; less generously, his narcissistic
self-aggrandizement. What is fascinating about the Churchill quotes is its honesty, and suggestion
that Churchill had a blatant and unapologetic disregard for the purpose of history as a search for
impartiality, in place for using history to forge his own personal legacy.

Of course, Churchill is an unusual case. He was both a political leader in perhaps the most
important event of the twentieth century, and an historian. Few historians have the opportunity to
write directly about events they were so closely involved in.

4. “An entire career can be built on the trick of contrariness”

Nonetheless, all historians do have a legacy to consider, even if that legacy is purely within
academic circles; they do have pressures to contend with, whether these are as normal as the
financial pressures of getting a job, and publishing a book that will sell; and, whether they like to
admit it or not, historians are also people. They may not be as vain and narcissistic as Churchill,
but all people have a certain level of ego.

One historian who has had this accusation levelled against him throughout his career is the
economic and military historian Niall Ferguson. He is famous as an original, or contrarian thinker,
and has written numerous highly controversial history books which have challenged orthodox
thinking. He is also wealthy (as far as historians go), as a result of a lucrative television career in
both the UK and US.

The question which has followed him is – are his unique perspectives on history the result of a
brilliant mind, or just a clever mischief maker looking for the spotlight? In a 2006 article his
success was described as providing a model of how “an entire career can be built on the trick of
contrariness”.

5. “History is past politics and politics present history”

It is also possible to see the way that ‘abuse’ of perspectives on history is related to
non-personal, external factors.

One example of this can be seen in the connection between history and politics. In Politics and
the Past, The Socialist Group in the European Parliament wrote that “One cannot deny that there
is a relation between history and politics, between historians and politicians. Some went even so
far to say that history is past politics and politics present history”.

Some of the deepest abuse of history takes place on this level, where perspectives on history
become little more than a tool for political purposes. Many of the worst examples of political
polarization in the modern western world make use of historical narratives. This can be seen in
battles over the nature of Confederate statues in the southern states of the US. It can be seen in
Hungary, where the President Viktor Orban has invoked a 1552 siege by invading Ottoman
troops of the castle of Eger, and its defence led by Captain Istvan Dobo, as a parallel to and
justification for his anti-immigration policies towards Syrian refugees.
Some of this abuse is clear and evident to the critical eye. However, there are also many other
more subtle and pernicious examples. School textbooks are one such example. In Japan there
have been a number of controversies caused by the Japanese Society for History Textbook
Reform, who have led successful efforts to redraft school textbooks in a way which denies
Japanese atrocities during WW2. In Russia there has been recent controversy over the use of
textbooks to glorify certain aspects of Russian past which align with government policy. The
history of genocide is deeply and worryingly wrapped up in political considerations of the
implication of ‘accusing’ a country of having committed genocide. All of these suggest the
vulnerability that history has to ‘abuse’.

6. “Study the historian before you study the facts”

Once we understand the vulnerability that perspectives on history have to ‘abuse’, then we
already begin to understand the solutions. The first, and most important thing to remember, is
that every historical narrative has an author, and every author has a perspective. This is true for
academic historians, for the authors of textbooks, and for classroom teachers.

Nothing is as important as knowing whose perspective we are hearing at any particular moment.
Indeed, E.H. Carr (What is History? 1961) claimed that anyone who wanted to understand any
historical narrative should “study the historian before you study the facts”. Of course, most
authors will not be abusing history, or at least not intentionally, but they will be using their point of
view to make sense of the past.

This presents a range of problems, which readers of history should learn to recognize and
overcome.

7. “There are facts, there are opinions, and there are lies”
The most dangerous, and blatant, abuse of perspectives in history lies in its darkest corners. They
are sadly prevalent, and some may consider the threat to be growing in the era of ‘alternative
facts’ and ‘fake news’.

This is the conspiracy theory. Some, such as whether the 1969 moon landing really took place,
may be considered relatively harmless. Others, such as the denial of the Holocaust, are
undoubtedly deeply harmful.

Being able to identify when ‘perspective’ falls into ‘conspiracy theory’ can be difficult. Many
conspiracy theories present their facts in coherent, logical ways. Nonetheless, they are unified by
certain trends, perhaps most commonly a deep ‘selection bias’ with the facts they present, and
often a manipulation of the facts themselves.

It is the manipulation of facts that means conspiracy theories do not necessarily fit the definition
of ‘perspective’. As Deborah Lipstadt, the historian who was sued (and won) in a court of law after
rightly describing David Irving as a Holocaust denier, said in her inspirational TED Talk: “There are
facts, there are opinions, and there are lies.”

Lipstadt, who actually went to court, is an outlier in terms of successfully challenging a conspiracy
theorist. Doing so is often a fraught and difficult task, since by their nature they are based not on
rational argument but since “a very intense emotional need to see the world in this way” (Dr
David Bell, quoted in a BBC article ‘Why you can’t argue with a conspiracy theorist’)

8. “The rebirth of control over history”

Perhaps equally concerning is the abuse of history for political ends, most clearly within
authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states.

George Orwell, who in many ways can be viewed as a the patron saint of the role of power and
perspectives in history, famously wrote in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four that “Who controls the
past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” His warning of an
authoritarian future, where governments literally re-wrote the past to support the power of their
regime, may sound like something that belongs only in the realm of Science Fiction.

For historians who want to challenge this abuse of historical perspectives, the risks can also be
high. In 2009 Mikael Suprun, a Russian historian investigating what happened to German
prisoners of war in WW2 was arrested, his personal archives confiscated, and charged with
violating privacy laws. Orlando Figes, the historian of Russia, described the arrest as a “Putinite
campaign against freedom of historical research”, and Rauf Gabidullin, of the Arkhangelsk
movement for human rights, wrote that “What we are seeing is the rebirth of control over history.”

9. “Reality-suffocating myth”
Thankfully, most historians do not work in such politically repressive environments. Nonetheless,
the abuse of history still takes place.

One that many people will be familiar with is their experience of learning history at school. The
goal of history curriculums in many countries is, on some level, to make students feel proud of
and identify with their country. Check out the first aim of the UK curriculum for history: “To know
and understand the history of these islands as a coherent, chronological narrative”. If there is one
thing that History Rising makes clear, history is not, most definitely, coherent. It is messy. But this
is not what we are encouraged to learn in schools.

Students in the US often learn about the opening shot of the American Revolutionary War as “The
shot heard round the world”, which changed the course of world history. What US students don’t
perhaps recognize is that in the rest of the world, the American Revolutionary War is barely
taught, and when it is it tends to be viewed as an add-on to the French Revolution, and barely the
most significant event in the break up of the British Empire (that would go to the independence of
India).
In the UK, in an article in the New Statesman, It’s Time to Debunk the Churchill Myth, the historian
Simon Heffer wrote about the “reality-suffocating myth” that surrounds Winston Churchill, due to
his achievements during the Second World War. Heffer writes that this myth “diverts” attention
from other aspects of Churchill’s controversial and often unsuccessful career. It “discourages
analysis” and “reflection” on even his conduct during the war itself, which “was much more hit
and miss than conventional history usually has it”

Challenging this type of abuse is more subtle, and trickier. Historians can find themselves
confronting awkward truths, and in tricky conversations about culture. They can find themselves
accused of a lack of patriotism, or failing to promote national pride and citizenship.

The best answer to these criticisms lies in the aims of history, to promote thinking open mindedly,
critically, and reflectively.