History and 1984

History can never be recorded accurately. Why? Because there is no such thing as an objective viewer. Example: a sports writer summarizing a recent football game will ALWAYS put an emphasis on their team's strengths, triumphs, and the like. Why? They want them to succeed and support his or her team to the fullest, and even when that particular team doesn't, that writer will ALWAYS be kinder than another who roots for the opposing team. It's the truth. In 1984, history is written and rewritten to promote well being of the party, much like today's footballer journalist who will one day say 'This team sunk', then revise his view to make himself seem like a creditable source after that team wins the Super Bowl. Now, this may seem like a change opinion, which in a way it is, but it's a self-sustaining change, like doublethink found in 1984. A person can really believe that that team sinks, but also like them because they are winning. (Teams that come to my mind are the Raiders and the Panthers... :) But bringing this back to the manipulation of history...) This expression of conflicting viewpoint with personal belief, like who has always been our ally in the war between Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia or who is a good team, is self-serving to the healthiness and well-being of the Party or some one's ego and finances (if they bet on teams. I suggest that no one bet on the Raiders. Ever.).

So, since history is clouded by opinions and personal and public beliefs, history can never be pure. Interpretations can change due to life experience and the discovery of new "facts" (more like truths). It can change depending on location, time, opinion, and new theories and beliefs. But history, pure history, can never change. Cold hard facts. Timelines. That is 'real' history, pure fact, and everything else is color. Diaries, accounts, and historians' views are opinions on the times. Newspapers are attempts to be objective, but are still opinions on current events. Who ever won the battle, reports that view point and for the most part the world will accept it (save for the more recent wars). The losers, who have a different standpoint on their loss, will not object to being further trampled on. They no longer have the power or standing to stop anyone from believing anything else. And this is why, in several cases, minorities' want their history heard in public school curriculum. They have had their own battles, triumphs, but because they haven't been heard before people ignore their role in society. They are pushed over for the general white politics. Now, it's been argued that you cannot include everything in state standards, which is a fact (history is a vast, unending subject, as we all know), but it doesn't mean that a little color on pure history, a little different emphasis would be a bad thing. Any extensive in depth look would probably serve someone better in college, but introducing different cultures into our primarily white history wouldn't be terrible. Even though those minorities lost the battle against the white European-Americans, doesn't mean that their viewpoint is worthless.

So, to recap. History is never objective because of the opinions of the time period and what we think in the present. The ongoing creation of history is also not objective despite the attempts of journalists, because we are all biased. This football team is better than this one; this country in better than that one. But minorities should have their histories shared. Without even the littlest knowledge of their role in the modern history of a community, their worth is overlooked. In 1984, everyone is the same in uniform, at home, and situation. There is no worth in a society without variation. Without our little color in history, every one's views would be the same, and there would be little difference from country to country in this regard. Pure history will not change (hopefully), but our opinions will. Is this terrible? Not as long as we have the freedom of individuality.