"CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORY"
Beyond the classical definition of history, questions about its inner structure have lightened many different points of view for me. At first it was very confusing for me that questioning all the facts that I have red, searched or written under the title of history. How can I feel suspicious about a science which indicates events by giving certain person, location and time? But then I have remembered word of one of my ex-lecturers: “You have to suspect about the fact that you think most certain.” Lastly, I have decided that I need to ask this: What is history.
According to E.H. Carr, when we try to answer the question of “What is history” our answer reflects our attitude in period of time accidentally or purposely. And also it constitutes a part of our response to the question of what we think about the society that we live in.[1] In fact, this situation can be evaluated as an other approach about this famous word: “The main indicator of human thought is that the general consideration and the trend of the period of time that he or she live in.” In addition, the existence of many different even contradictory responses about the question makes the situation much more confusing and complicated.
It is certain that ‘event’ is very important for the science of history. But the question of how an ‘historical event’ occurs creates the turning point. Obviously, all of the events can not be considered as a historical event. The duty of a historician is that to pick up the historical events in other words important events among the mass of other ordinary events. We know that it is a must for the science of history but we also know that the construction of history starts by doing or accepting this action. I mean from now on we can not be objective anymore. It is clear that one event which is historical for us but may not be for others and also one event which is historical for others may not be historical for us, too. We can say that it depends on the priority, ordering or in other words the construction of history from the points of view of the parties. The construction of history creates the other situation which can be called as ‘comment’. As E.H. Carr mentions the question of historical event paves the way for the question of comment. [2]
In my opinion, there can not be a history without comment. Even though chronology is the most objective or in other words the furthest part of science of history from comment it is possible to say that the simplest example of chronology is full of comment from bottom to top. Let me try to explain a little bit more with an example of mine:
If you ask someone who you want in the street that “when was the continent of America discovered?” the man or woman will answer your question-of course if he or she knows the answer- without any critic or decline about the construction of your question. At first glance this question looks like there is no comment in it. But now I want you to imagine that this question is asked to a Native American. The question about the discovery will probably be reflected with opposite comment. And most probably the answer of this Native American will consist of invasion or occupation rather than a discovery and may be the answer will be like that:
“Discovered? What are you talking about? My ancestors have been living here for ages, this continent is our mother land and you, white people came here only five hundred years ago. By the way, why are you calling this land America, Is not he a man from your mother land, from Europe. Am I calling your continent like ‘oturan boğa’ or ‘kızıl tüy’?” If we come back to the integration of Europe, oh sorry did I say Europe? What is Europe? Who found this name? I think I have to be much more careful about my words that I use. As you probably know the name of Europe comes from the language of Sumers. And it generally means: ‘the dark country’. I mean construction is located whole in our daily life rather than the political issues about Europe or the world. And I believe that we have to be much more concerned about the ‘emphatic attitude’ or ‘behavior’. Let me finish my article with the word of Napoleon Bonaparte: “History belongs only to the person who writes it and also history is the biggest lie which no one question.”
According to E.H. Carr, when we try to answer the question of “What is history” our answer reflects our attitude in period of time accidentally or purposely. And also it constitutes a part of our response to the question of what we think about the society that we live in.[1] In fact, this situation can be evaluated as an other approach about this famous word: “The main indicator of human thought is that the general consideration and the trend of the period of time that he or she live in.” In addition, the existence of many different even contradictory responses about the question makes the situation much more confusing and complicated.
It is certain that ‘event’ is very important for the science of history. But the question of how an ‘historical event’ occurs creates the turning point. Obviously, all of the events can not be considered as a historical event. The duty of a historician is that to pick up the historical events in other words important events among the mass of other ordinary events. We know that it is a must for the science of history but we also know that the construction of history starts by doing or accepting this action. I mean from now on we can not be objective anymore. It is clear that one event which is historical for us but may not be for others and also one event which is historical for others may not be historical for us, too. We can say that it depends on the priority, ordering or in other words the construction of history from the points of view of the parties. The construction of history creates the other situation which can be called as ‘comment’. As E.H. Carr mentions the question of historical event paves the way for the question of comment. [2]
In my opinion, there can not be a history without comment. Even though chronology is the most objective or in other words the furthest part of science of history from comment it is possible to say that the simplest example of chronology is full of comment from bottom to top. Let me try to explain a little bit more with an example of mine:
If you ask someone who you want in the street that “when was the continent of America discovered?” the man or woman will answer your question-of course if he or she knows the answer- without any critic or decline about the construction of your question. At first glance this question looks like there is no comment in it. But now I want you to imagine that this question is asked to a Native American. The question about the discovery will probably be reflected with opposite comment. And most probably the answer of this Native American will consist of invasion or occupation rather than a discovery and may be the answer will be like that:
“Discovered? What are you talking about? My ancestors have been living here for ages, this continent is our mother land and you, white people came here only five hundred years ago. By the way, why are you calling this land America, Is not he a man from your mother land, from Europe. Am I calling your continent like ‘oturan boğa’ or ‘kızıl tüy’?” If we come back to the integration of Europe, oh sorry did I say Europe? What is Europe? Who found this name? I think I have to be much more careful about my words that I use. As you probably know the name of Europe comes from the language of Sumers. And it generally means: ‘the dark country’. I mean construction is located whole in our daily life rather than the political issues about Europe or the world. And I believe that we have to be much more concerned about the ‘emphatic attitude’ or ‘behavior’. Let me finish my article with the word of Napoleon Bonaparte: “History belongs only to the person who writes it and also history is the biggest lie which no one question.”
A.Gökhan RAKICI
January 2005
Sources
[1] E.H.Carr, “Tarih nedir ?”, İletişim yay., 2002, İstanbul, p.10-11
[2] Ibid., p.15
Yorumlar