By: Isra Henson
As discussed in the previous blog post, historians must be careful when studying and writing about historical events. All researchers—including historians—are subject to human fallibility and their research will never be completely without bias, but that it will never be completely without bias does not mean that bias should not be limited as much as possible. It is dangerous for a field of study to embrace—or, worse, to encourage—bias as such an embrace could effectively taint the information it seeks to present. For historians, such bias is often represented by the passing of moral judgment. A researcher can attempt to avoid the dangers of bias by recognizing their own positionality in relation to a topic, and by being critical of the sources being used.
Unfortunately, historians have been used throughout history by different kingdoms, states, and governments to promote biased narratives advantageous to them but not to the truth. For example, consider Herodotus, the “Father of History”. He, as a Greek man, held certain biases and strongly believed certain things to be the absolute truth. His Histories were primarily about the Persian Wars, a conflict which set many ancient Greek city-states against the Persian Empire in a—from the Greek perspective—heroic battle for freedom.
Herodotus made the conflict very simple; the Greeks were good and righteous while the Persians were barbaric and evil. Herodotus’ work is an example of top-down history, which only examines elite figures in history. He also frequently included mythology within his Histories. He believed that the Persians were being punished for their hubris by the Gods, and that the Gods were supporting the Greeks in their revolt. This is an excellent example of the moralisation of history being used for propaganda. Those in ancient Greece reading Herodotus’ account would have felt that their leaders were right to fight against the Persians, and would have changed the opinions of many Greeks. His account is just one example of a history where only one side of the story is seen as legitimate.
A more modern example of this is the presentation of Canada as the “good guys” throughout history. Many people were told about the Underground Railroad that existed when slavery was present in the United States; students were taught that enslaved peoples escaped and came to Canada and were completely free. We were never told that there was slavery in Canada as well, and that many fugitive slaves were forced into indentured servitude once they arrived in Canada. Additionally, many Canadians were, until recently, unaware of the government’s persecution of Indigenous peoples and the abuses that went on within the residential school system. These aspects of Canadian history were ignored and hidden so that a specific narrative could be presented to Canadians and the rest of the world.
It is extremely important that historians maintain their independence from external forces that might compel them to write inaccurate historical narratives. Historical writing should not be policed in order to create a particular narrative. This may be a difficult task, as many historians work within government-run or supported institutions such as museums and universities. Bureaucracy is almost impossible to avoid in academia, and although it may not be possible to bypass it, one can still minimize the bias present within your own research and writing.
Works Cited
Wright-Maley, Cory. “‘Glossed over and Missing’: Preservice Teachers Learn About Slavery in Canada.” Theory and Research in Social Education 50, no. 4 (2022): 581–606.
Hau, Lisa Irene. Moral History from Herodotus to Diodorus. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016.
Stoehr, C. M.. “Appropriation vs. Incorporation: Indigenous Content in the
Canadian History Classroom”. Active History. July 15, 2019. https://activehistory.ca/2019/07/appropriation-vs-incorporation-indigenous-content-in-the-canadian-history-classroom/.
Comments