American History as Progress
Question :
we have a reading every week and have to write a response paper about the reading only one page. we basically have to show our engagement with reading as a proof of the reading. Basically, whats needed is talking about the reading and include three parts of the reading that we like weather its a phrase, sentence, or anything we like form the reading. and paste in the response page in a quotation marks and talk about it. and what is the page number fora reference.
Answer :
The chapter on History of Progress looks at various aspects that are often considered in writing history, whether it is considering history as progressive or something that was filled with stories and events that hold no meaning. Given below are three parts of the reading that piqued my interest:
“There is, on the whole, much less liberty in the world now than there was a hundred years ago.' I have no measuring-rod for liberty, and do not know how to balance the lesser liberty of few against the greater liberty of many.” (p. 68)
The interpretation of liberty can be seen differently by people from different levels. In the past there were tough times for people of races other than white. There used to be white supremacy that has somewhat reduced. People of colors are now finding equal treatment in almost all aspects of their lives as their white counterparts. Moreover, people from other nations such as Asia and China are on equal terms. Here, if the situation is viewed from white supermacist point of view, then it can be said that liberty has reduced, whereas if it is viewed from colored people’s perspective, then it can be said that liberty has increased.
“They sought to vindicate man's place in the world of nature: the laws of history were equated with the laws of nature.” (p. 69)
History and nature are completely two different things. Evolution of humans can be considered in the ambit of nature, and shift of humans from one generation to another can be said as history. Here, the author rightly says that few years of history cannot be equated with millions of years of evolution.
“Objectivity in history - if we are still to use the conventional term - cannot be an objectivity of fact, but only of relation, of the relation between fact and interpretation, between past, present, and future.” (p. 73)
It is quite understandable that having complete objectivity is nearly impossible. Reason is that historians hold some form of personal viewpoint or biasness which often reflect in their work (Tamm, 2014). The example of Nicholas II can be considered here. If a historian consider russian revolution as stupidity, then it is his/her point of view. A historian who favored russian revolution may not think it as stupid.
Reference
Tamm, M. (2014). Truth, objectivity and evidence in history writing. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 8(2), 265-290.
