• YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
  • Like us on facebook here

Help pls History Extension (1 Viewer)

Joined
Apr 9, 2021
Messages
48
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Hey guys, If anyone has done or has any resources on the essay question

Assess how accurately History has been constructed, recorded and presented over time

it would be of great help for me, Thank you!!!
 
Last edited:

Hiheyhello

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2019
Messages
244
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
perhaps discuss how accuracy is difficult to achieve because historians are faillible. despite historians aiming to accurately and objectively present and construct history, historical sources can be interpreted in many different lights depending on a historian’s context and intrinsic motivations, which can lead to varying and conflicting conclusions about history.

presenting historical accuracy is paradoxically the unattainable aim of historians, however their process in constructing history can reveal insights about human nature.

okay that’s probs too much but basically talk about how the main aim of hiistorians is to be accurate, yet accuracy is difficult to achieve. then talk about WHY:
1) sources can be unreliable
2) historians can be biased
 

specificagent1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
633
Gender
Male
HSC
2021
it is dumb, i really dont know what they expect me to write
I do history extension, I can run you through a few ideas without going into the content (ie, historians/schools) because that's the point of the course??

"Assess how accurately History has been constructed, recorded and presented over time"

I think my first issue with this question is the use of "accurately" because what is accurate history? If the the construction of history as a whole is done by people there will always be some form of bias present. Note that history is not the past, it is the construction of the past. You will learn more about this in the course but essentially some forms of this may include:
  • Individual Bias: The very person and the thoughts they have may influence the work they create or what they choose to write about. If I only choose to write about a certain portion of an event it may produce a very preferable story.
  • Unintentional Bias: This can be the very methods of the historian may lead to them seeing the events differently. For example, Australian history: some historians may only be looking at colonial archives where other historians may look at indigenous people's testimony. (History wars). Additionally, the very survival of evidence or what evidence is left behind can also affect the works of historians without their knowledge. Think how we may praise a civilisation for their great craftsmanship and because of that claim that they were very skilled, but only the ones that are good are able to survive time and the poorly constructed ones would have been long gone.
  • Sociological Bias: In essence the very position of a particular person in society or other factors that affect their life such as their education and work may affect them.
So the question is asking you to assess how accurately history has been... but how can we evaluate how accurate something is if we don't even know what it's meant to be. How good is this piece of cookie when you don't even know what a good cookie is?

Construction:
The construction of history refers to the methodology of the historian. What evidence do they use? Who do they consult? How do they evaluate this evidence? Do they use evidence? The type of evidence they use? If there's no evidence used, how do they come up with their ideas and theories. What led them to this conclusion. Like Karl Marx sees everything from only a perspective of social classes or earlier historians may try to use history to explain divine events.

Recorded:
So in what way has this history been documented. History wasn't always an academic discipline where people wrote books or papers about. Early historians may have just wrote it down as a form of entertainment for the people.

Presented:
So this refers to the language used by historians or the way they have reached a conclusion. Some historians may present their history as a moral lesson and hence focus on the flaws of the past. Others may use it to serve a lesson of why Christianity is superior or something like that. Some may use rhetoric and exaggerate what happened because they need to present their history as entertainment to the people
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 9, 2021
Messages
48
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
perhaps discuss how accuracy is difficult to achieve because historians are faillible. despite historians aiming to accurately and objectively present and construct history, historical sources can be interpreted in many different lights depending on a historian’s context and intrinsic motivations, which can lead to varying and conflicting conclusions about history.

presenting historical accuracy is paradoxically the unattainable aim of historians, however their process in constructing history can reveal insights about human nature.

okay that’s probs too much but basically talk about how the main aim of hiistorians is to be accurate, yet accuracy is difficult to achieve. then talk about WHY:
1) sources can be unreliable
2) historians can be biased
Thank you so much!!!
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2021
Messages
48
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I do history extension, I can run you through a few ideas without going into the content (ie, historians/schools) because that's the point of the course??

"Assess how accurately History has been constructed, recorded and presented over time"

I think my first issue with this question is the use of "accurately" because what is accurate history? If the the construction of history as a whole is done by people there will always be some form of bias present. Note that history is not the past, it is the construction of the past. You will learn more about this in the course but essentially some forms of this may include:
  • Individual Bias: The very person and the thoughts they have may influence the work they create or what they choose to write about. If I only choose to write about a certain portion of an event it may produce a very preferable story.
  • Unintentional Bias: This can be the very methods of the historian may lead to them seeing the events differently. For example, Australian history: some historians may only be looking at colonial archives where other historians may look at indigenous people's testimony. (History wars). Additionally, the very survival of evidence or what evidence is left behind can also affect the works of historians without their knowledge. Think how we may praise a civilisation for their great craftsmanship and because of that claim that they were very skilled, but only the ones that are good are able to survive time and the poorly constructed ones would have been long gone.
  • Sociological Bias: In essence the very position of a particular person in society or other factors that affect their life such as their education and work may affect them.
So the question is asking you to assess how accurately history has been... but how can we evaluate how accurate something is if we don't even know what it's meant to be. How good is this piece of cookie when you don't even know what a good cookie is?

Construction:
The construction of history refers to the methodology of the historian. What evidence do they use? Who do they consult? How do they evaluate this evidence? Do they use evidence? The type of evidence they use? If there's no evidence used, how do they come up with their ideas and theories. What led them to this conclusion. Like Karl Marx sees everything from only a perspective of social classes or earlier historians may try to use history to explain divine events.

Recorded:
So in what way was this historian been documented. History wasn't always an academic discipline where people wrote books or papers about. Early historians may have just wrote it down as a form of entertainment for the people.

Presented:
So this refers to the language used by historians or the way they have reached a conclusion. Some historians may present their history as a moral lesson and hence focus on the flaws of the past. Others may use it to serve a lesson of why Christianity is superior or something like that. Some may use rhetoric and exaggerate what happened because they need to present their history as entertainment to the people
Thank you!!! This was incredibly helpful!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top