history, a weapon?

In TOK class, we have recently started discussing the area of knowledge "History". We first learnt that history is a branch of knowledge dealing with significant events of the past. The word "significant" holds importance here as all history is past but all past isn't history. That took us to a discussion about the differences between past and history. Simply put, the past is everything that has happened before but only certain significant/important events are considered to be a part of history.

So how do we know what is considered to be history? Any event considered important by historians. Historians are humans too, which means they cannot be entirely objective to the knowledge they discover or procure. They are prone to be clouded by their opinions, judgements, bias, prejudice and beliefs. So what we study as history from these historians isn't entirely objective. However, in dire times history has been used as a way to manipulate people for someone to help fulfil their agenda. Several cases of this have happened in the past. This issue brings us to a knowledge question,

"can historical distortion be considered morally right?"

According to a paper, I found online, It is possible to define historical distortion (also known as historical negationism) as "Historical negationism is applied to cultivate a specific political or ideological myth – sometimes with official consent from the government – whereby self-taught, amateur and dissident academic historians either manipulate or misrepresent historical accounts to achieve political/ideological ends" [1]. It essentially means that people in power can use history to distort the truth, creating different versions of what happened to influence a population. 

There have been several cases of historical distortion taking place. An example of this is holocaust denial. The holocaust is one of the most saddening and tragic events to have taken place, there is so much evidence obtained that supports the fact that this has taken place - including testimonies from holocaust survivors - yet there are people that continue to deny that this. They claim the holocaust is a myth and that it was created to turn people against the Nazi's. Here it fulfils the Nazi's political agenda. 

In one of my earlier posts titled "Language and 1984", I talked about the book 1984 by George Orwell. The book is highly relevant to this topic too. In it, the main character Winston Smith is a member of the big brother's party, whose job is to 'rewrite' history by revising newspaper articles and other written records to align with the party's current version of the 'truth'. Orwell talks about how totalitarianism and how history is used to help with the process.

Is this morally right? My answer here is no.  By essentially gaslighting learners and denying access to the truth, people resort to rumours or relying on idealists - essentially what is expected of them. Connections to moral relativism and lies can be made here. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal set of moral principles. However, as individuals, we all possess our own morals and according to mine, dishonesty for selfish gains is considered immoral. Hence, my conclusion.



[1] Taisia Osipova, "Peasant rebellions: Origin, Scope, Design and Consequences", in Vladimir N. Brovkin (ed.), The Bolsheviks in Russian Society: The Revolution and the Civil Wars, Yale University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-300-06706-2. pp. 154–76.