Written History is Never Valid - Essay Example

There are two main types of history, that is written and oral history. Written history is also referred to as recorded history and it is a concept that describes the availability of a documented record which historians can use to support a given and specific historical event. In some parts of the world, recorded history is limited to a period of time in human history which is recent. However, the concept of recorded history began in the 4th millennium BC, when the concept of writing began1. On this basis, written history may refer to differences in the periods of time, but this depends on what is being recorded.

Written history depends so much on documentations, on this basis, written history is always contrasted with oral history. Oral history refers to the study and collection of historical information regarding families, individuals, and important events through video tapes, audio tapes, or through transcriptions of interviews2. These interviews are normally conducted on people who experienced a past historical event, and their memories are sufficient enough to remember these historical events. Oral history seeks to obtain information about different perspectives of an historical event, which cannot be found in documented history.

Oral history was mostly used by societies which did not have knowledge on writing to preserve their important historical events. This paper analyzes the concept of written history, and whether written history is valid and reliable. In meeting its objectives, this paper identifies the strengths of written history, and its weaknesses, and it compare those strengths with that of oral history, after which it will make a conclusion on whether written history is valid. Scholars denote that written or documented history is not a valid form of historical preservation.

According to these scholars, documented history has a number of disadvantages, and hence, it cannot qualify as an effective means of preserving a particular historical event. For example, these scholars denote that historians who use these forms of historical preservation can have a bias on what they record3. Take for example, the emergence of the Second World War. During this war, Hitler, the President of Germany was the villain. However, his activities will be recorded differently, depending on which side the historian is.

Those who supported the activities of Hitler might record his activities on a positive note, while those who were against the policies of Hitler, might record them on a negative note4. On this basis, recorded history does not give accurate information on what really happened because of bias. However, there are a number of scholars who believe that written history is a valid method of historical preservation5. These same scholars denote that the information that is contained in the written records is adequate, and reliable.

This is because important dates of the historical event are recorded. On this basis, historians are able to know the time period in which an event occurred, the circumstances of the occurrence6. Written records are able to capture in detail, making sure that all the necessary and important information are captured and documented. Documented history has been used since the invention of writing in the 4th millennium. On this basis, recorded history is a very important and effective mechanism of preserving historical information.

Scholars denote that in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century, the most dominant method of historical preservation is the use of written history. For instances, the exploits of Napoleon Bonaparte, the emergence of the first and the Second World War, the American Civil war, are all documented, and stored in the library archives of the various states in the world. These important historical events are documented, and a specific date given on their occurrences, and factors that triggered their occurrences7.

However, in as much as these important historical; events are written, it is important to denote that the records are written from the perspective of an historian, and not on what actually transpired. Therefore, an element of bias exists, which makes it difficult to rely effectively on the information contained in these written records. Those who oppose written history denote that oral history is the best method of preserving an historical event. This is because the information is derived from an individual who witnessed the actual event, and this information is preserved for generations to come8.

These scholars further denote that due to the emergence of technology, it is easy to record the person giving out the history, and preserve it for generations to come9. This therefore makes the information contained in the recorded tape very reliable. In conclusion, the notion that written history is not valid has a variety of arguments and counter arguments. This paper manages to denote that written history has some elements of bias, and therefore its contents cannot be relied upon. However, a counter argument given on this notion is that information contained in a written historical record is reliable and accurate.

They further argue that a written historical record has the specific dates, and time when such an event occurred and thus it is very reliable. They further denote that historian used documentations to record the activities of Napoleon Bonaparte, the Second World War, etc. However, the counter argument given on this aspect is that in as much as historians used documentations to record these important historical events, there was some elements of bias in their recording. On this note, Historians proposes oral history as the best method of historical preservation.

Bibliography: Chemla, Karine. History of science, history of text. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 2004. Hawking, S. W., and Leonard Mlodinow. A briefer history of time. New York: Bantam Books, 2005. Hobsbawm, E. J.. On history. New York: New Press, 1997. Kanamori, Akihiro. Handbook of the history of logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2012.