History Is a Lie Commonly Agreed Upon

Author: Ali Abbas Soni (06982)

What is History? History is a narrative about the past written in the here and now (Munslow,
2001). Here one encounters a distinction between the Past and History which, the public at
large, identifies as one and the same. The past here is self-evident; all that transpired. Whereas
history is a fragment of that past recollected by a historian. A complex enterprise involving the
study of multiple sources amid varying interpretive techniques, and theoretical frameworks.
Thus one encounters the complicated realm of historiography study of the methodological
framework through which the historian sets about reconstructing that fragment of the past. This
is not an antiquarian romance for the past but a reconstruction of the very ground present stands
on. The pragmatics of history, however are not the subject of my discussion. This reconstruction
of the past invokes problems of its own. To put it crudely, writing history has largely been a
matter of ideology. This spirit of the dead is erected across the prejudices, interpretation and
ideology of the historian and his present. Often subject to the ruling elite and legacy they wish
to purport, highlighting some aspects while neglecting the others. Moreover, one account of an
event can be interpreted differently by different people, even the same historian can interpret
the same account differently at a different time, and thus historians need to constantly rework,
rethink and question what they know. Given the discrepancies involved, Voltaires statement
holds merit even today; history is a lie commonly agreed upon.
Man has always tried to capture the past onto history, but there are three major problems; those
of epistemology, methodology, and ideology. Epistemology is the study of how we know what
we know (Jenkins). Epistemology opines the fragility of a history which can be molded to mean
anything, here power dictates knowledge and its availability (Jenkins). To begin with, one must
identify a scale of history the past is too vast a concern (Little, 2012). Thereon, how would one
authenticate a historic account? Moreover, there is always an element of the historians own
interpretation in the narrations of history thus it is polluted and may not necessarily be true.
Take for instance, the War of Independence of 1857 in India, we refer to it as an act of valor and
take pride in our ancestors for fighting for their independence but, on the other hand, the British
accounts remember it as the Great Indian Mutiny. This further allows one to infer the role of
those in power to limit and edit what is known. Nevertheless, epistemology stresses on
hindsight; we at present know more of the past than those who lived through it.
The second major area of concern is methodology. It is concerned with practice of history; that is
how historians use the data, and techniques to validate it. Historians use tight methodological
guidelines to subside their influence including time, evidence, empathy, cause and effect,
continuity, and change. But what is to say these common practices are perfect, for instance, how
is a historian to generate empathy for those people of the past, simultaneously devising links
between one event and another (cause and effect). For e.g. how can one claim World War 1 was

initiated by the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, and the events to follow a
coincidentally fatal decision flaming the War further. Another Problem in the Methodology is
choosing a method, there are multiple methods one can choose from, and how can we know
which method will lead us to the truth. Even when choosing one method, the historian own
ideology guides his decision, and even the methods chosen can be biased in itself as to lead to a
particular conclusion. Not too long ago Edward Said gallantly advocated the prejudices of the
European historians formulating the hardened maxims of Orientalism constructing a history of
thought too power in its recourse to outset existing reality itself let alone the past; Said is one
instance of such fallibility of such histories and the power it generates (Sai'd, 1995).
Epistemology states that the past and history are quite literally two separate entities, historians
try to overcome this gap with tight methodological rules and also to reduce the element of
personal interpretations. Even while writing history, historians take with them their personality,
epistemological presuppositions, and their own values and ideology. These compared with the
outside pressures from powerful individuals, families, the economy, and overall society, leads to
a not so true statement/account of the past. Though it must be noted that historians are not
writers of fictions, they are limited by the sources available to them for research. Not everything
they write is false. But the meaning they give to it mostly deviates from the truth.
Ideology knows the answer before the question has been asked (George Packer). Ideology is a
one of the strongest challenge presented in writing of history. But what is ideology? It is defined
as social cognitions that are shared by the members of a group (Dijk, p. 5). There is always an
ideology associated to a society as to its core fundamentals propagated, of course, by those in
power the elite, conquerors, and winner. What else is the eternal conflict the Orient and the
the Occident- they exist and add meaning to one another, a mill that churns out the other
(Haq, 2012). Ideology is important to cultivate a sense of belonging with history as its
handmaiden. History per say is always for someone else. History is made to legitimize the ruling
elite and since it is an ideological construct, it is continuously reworked and re-ordered to suit
the needs of the powerful. In doing so one can question the authenticity of history as one can
portray a false ideology onto history willing it into existence. For instance Ayesha Jalal in her
works proposes the idea of the formulation of Pakistan being an accident. Though a leading
authority on South Asian History, Jalal is probably read everywhere but in Pakistan (Haq, 2012).
Since her views threaten the received narrative about Pakistan; she must be abandoned. We do
not simply construct our ideology; we shall fight unto death to preserve it.
Columbus Day, is celebrated in America as the day when Columbus discovered America and
gave the indigenous people the gift of civilization. When in fact, Columbus was the one who
was lost at sea, entered a foreign land and exploited the situation. So did; the Imperialists justify
colonialism as government, order and stability for barbaric people. The Victor is an
opportunist who must also legitimize his claim in order to bear its fruit unhindered. This is a

prime example of how one side presents its history and proves how twisted history can actually
become. A brutal war criminal is celebrated as a savior (Zeese, 2015).
One must note that history is a means to define our roots, its used to legitimate what is being
done in the present and to provide meaning to our lives. History, thus, is always for someone
else. The powerful/winner are the one who determine what story historians dictate in their
accounts (Hugh A. Taylor, 2003). Thus History in retrospect is also a sociological concern as
much as a construct; a tool to control the present and in turn dictate the future. Finally we can
say that historians, turn what history is to whos history for (Jenkins). Thus proving our
earlier statement. History is, in fact, a lie commonly agreed upon. I would end by saying that
history is a theory and theory is from ideology, and this ideology spurs up from those in
control; when Ideology changes, so does history.
References
Dijk, T. A. (n.d.). Ideology and Discourse. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University.
Haq, S. N. (2012, October 21). History, poetry, and pragmatics by Syed Nomanul
Haq. Retrieved from DAWN: http://www.dawn.com/news/758376/columnhistory-poetry-and-pragmatics-by-syed-nomanul-haq
Hugh A. Taylor, C. D. (2003). Imagining Archives: Essay and Reflection. The
Scarecrow Press, Inc. Lanham, Maryland, and Oxford.
Jenkins, K. (n.d.). What History is. In Introduction to Historical Methods.
Little, D. (2012, February 28). "Philosophy of History", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition). Retrieved from The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#ConHis
Munslow, P. A. (2001, October). What is History. Retrieved from History In Focus:
http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Whatishistory/munslow6.html
Sai'd, E. (1995). Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. Penguin Books.
Zeese, K. (2015, October 12). The US Way of War: From Columbus to Kunduz.
Retrieved from Counter punch: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/12/theus-way-of-war-from-columbus-to-kunduz/