However, the two are somewhat related. Once you identify the perspective of a source, you may naturally expect that they demonstrate a particular kind of bias. In the example about the battle between the Romans and Greeks above, once you know that the creator of a source has a Roman perspective, you can start to guess that he may show some bias about a battle involving his countrymen. However, until you can identify specific biased word choices in the source that demonstrate bias, you cannot automatically jump to the conclusion that the source is biased.
I hope that you are now feeling comfortable about the difference between perspective and bias in historical sources. Write a comment. Rhys Thursday, 21 March Robert Monday, 17 June Jennifer Garry Tuesday, 05 November Hi how does differing interpretations fit into perspective and bias. History Skills Tuesday, 05 November Thanks for the question, Jennifer. Differing interpretations are considered an element of Contestability.
John Blueberry Thursday, 14 November Stewart Pid Friday, 15 November Joesph mame Monday, 18 November Anonymous Tuesday, 25 August Jeremiah Mccombs Tuesday, 01 September Sandra Lee Friday, 04 September But how does perspective in bias effect the validity of primary and secondary sources. History Skills Friday, 04 September Thanks for your question, Sandra. Perspective and bias can be used to effectively evaluate the usefulness and reliability of historical sources. Brunt Tuesday, 08 September Troi Brendle Wednesday, 16 September Diamond Thursday, 14 January Marie Sunday, 28 March Several typos, such as "Common kids sic of perspectives.
Otherwise, my teacher will not count this as a credible source. Two WashU researchers who conduct studies on bias and its impacts, Calvin Lai and Clara Wilkins, explain the roots and consequences of bias and how we can potentially reduce it.
We tend to think of people who behave in biased ways as bad people who take extreme actions to exclude others. No one wants to admit to being biased. According to researchers in psychological and brain sciences, however, biases are often at least partly unconscious.
Despite this, they profoundly impact way we interact with the world and tend to perpetuate much of the inequality that exists in our society. If we want to decrease harmful biases, we need to first understand what bias is.
Calvin Lai, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences, says that although the bias we hear about in the news is usually harmful, bias itself is not always negative. Not all biases are so harmless, however. Wilkins states that most people are hesitant to see themselves as participating in bias, but that we need to be aware that we can behave in harmful ways, even if we consciously support equality.
I think if we have this image of a racist person as a member of the KKK who does something really really violent, that is going to exclude a lot of acts that actually reinforce social inequality. Because so many people are reluctant to admit, and are often even unaware of, their biases, it is difficult for researchers to learn what biases the participants they are studying hold.
To counter this problem, researchers have developed something called the Implicit Association Test. IATs have consistently shown that people are faster to associate white people with good things and black people with bad things than vice versa, which demonstrates how these pairings are subconsciously linked together in their memories.
Researchers have also developed different IATs to test for the associations participants make on the basis of gender, religion, weight, sexuality, age, and a host of other identity categories. If you want to see what one of these tests is like, you can take one yourself at Project Implicit.
In the United States, some of the first to break this approach were African American scholars who at the turn of the 20th century wrote histories of black Americans and called for their inclusion in the mainstream historical narrative. It is quite extensive but its perspective is entirely Western Eurocentric. The biased approach to historical writing is present in the teaching of history as well.
From the origins of national mass schooling systems in the 19th century, the teaching of history to promote national sentiment has been a high priority. Until today, in most countries history textbook are tools to foster nationalism and patriotism and promote the most favorable version of national history.
In the United States, one of the most striking examples of this approach is the continuous narrative of the United States as a state established on the principles of personal liberty and democracy.
Although aspects of U. In many countries, history textbooks are sponsored by the national government and are written to put the national heritage in the most favorable light, although academic historians have often fought against the politicization of the textbooks, sometimes with success.
Interestingly, the 21st-century Germany attempts to be an example of how to remove nationalistic narratives from history education. As the 20th-century history of Germany is filled with events and processes that are rarely a cause of national pride, the history curriculum in Germany controlled by the 16 German states is characterized by a transnational perspective that emphasizes the all-European heritage, minimizes the idea of national pride, and fosters the notion of civil society centered on democracy, human rights, and peace.
Yet, even in the rather unusual German case, Eurocentrism continues to dominate. The challenge to replace national, or even nationalist, perspectives with a more inclusive transnational or global view of human history is also still very present in college-level history curricula.
In the United States after World War I, a strong movement emerged at the university level to teach courses in Western Civilization with the aim to give students a common heritage with Europe. After , attention increasingly moved toward teaching world history or requiring students to take courses in non-western cultures. Yet, world history courses still struggle to move beyond the Eurocentric perspective, focusing heavily on the history of Europe and its links to the United States.
Despite all the progress and much more focus on the groups that have been traditionally excluded from mainstream historical narratives people of color, women, the working class, the poor, the disabled, LGBTQI-identified people, etc. It is only appropriate to state that the present world history book, while written in accordance with the most recent scholarly and educational practices, has been written and edited by authors trained in American universities and published in the United States.
As such, it is also not free from both national U.
0コメント