Actions (as well as inactions) can have positive or negative consequences, depending on the human issue under examination or the perspective of the observer. For example: we've heard the phrase, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," indicating that the positive or negative effects of actions depend on the perspective or who is observing the action. Some will benefit, some will lose out, and history will be left to judge the outcome.
History, however, is the judgement of individuals examining fragments of an event, as told by prejudiced witnesses from their perspectives, through their paradigms, while exmining the event through their own lenses of truth. Another example: burning down houses of government officials, throwing tar on the bodies of government officials that was hot enough to burn skin, and inciting riots all sound like terrorist activities. Anyone who did this today would be arrested, and rightfully so.
These were all documented events that American colonists committed against the British leading up to the American Revolution.
When put in that light, such acts take on a kind of theatrical melodrama of an oppressed people fighting for their liberty. We see the events of the 1770s as the American Revolution; the British history books refer to that period in their history as the American Civil War. To Americans the American Civil War occurred generations later, as the war between the states in the 1860s.
Interesting how perspective changes a story, isnt it? Word choices used to describe an event have the same effect, as in my sentence above "These are all documented events that American colonists committed against the British leading up to the American Revolution." Including the word "documented" leads the reader to believe that they can find examples of such acts themselves, written by witnesses at the time they occurred. The inclusion of "documented" lends the thought credibility and authority, making what is written around it more credible. I've read many biographies and historical accounts that have written such things, however I cannot say I've looked at a single letter or newspaper article from the period to confirm these accounts are true. You probably won't either. We have a degree of faith that allows us to assume some information is true without verifying it directly ourselves. After all, if we had to verify everything we were told, we would spend more time verifying than learning.
Likewise, these acts were "committed" by American colonists against the British; rather than "committed" any other word could have been substituted to mean the same thing, right? Not really.
Use "perpetrated" instead of "committed" and the sentence takes on a different tone. A "perpetrator" is understood to be (or commonly used as) a negative description of someone, which tinges the sentence in such a way as to make it appear to be written by a British sympathizer; the colonists' acts take on a negative tone. When using "perpetrated" to describe actions colonists made against the British to someone who wasn't there, the speaker or writer is invoking opinion that the acts were negative.
This might not be the way it is received by the listener, however. If the listener is pro-British (called Tories in that day) the listener may agree that such acts were "perpetrated." If the listener is not a Tory, and really hates the British, the leader may hear and understand that such acts were "committed" by, or even credited to the colonists. A third angle is that the listener may be a new english speaker, therefore not understand what perpetrated means, and ascribe a new definition of the word imposing a new paradigm on what he or she has just heard.
With these uncertainties, history becomes a dynamic and fluid account. Truth in history becomes relative to those who write it, and later write about it. Initial judgements about events are colored by the times in which they occurred, while analyzing those events over time are colored by the times in which they're analyzed, and so on.
We can be certain some events took place (with sufficient "proof"), however we must recognize that our opinion about them is tainted by a messy series of perspectives. Now take a logical leap. . .
What does this say about biblical certainty?
No comments:
Post a Comment