One History or Many Histories?

History used to be taught at school as an endless line of kings and queens and even these days we are not so far away from this version of history. For example, a commonly used tool such as Wikipedia is written by the people. Therefore we might expect it to contain

more social history, but in fact, it is quite close to the old version of history due to a reliance on a neutral point of view and very banal factual writing. Ordinary people, by the rules of Wikipedia, are not allowed to write up their own story if they cannot link it to a newspaper or similar source. In this article I will contrast Wikipedia entries on American history with a book named « History of the USA » written by a historian named Howard Zinn. Zinn is interesting because he tends to explain events from a social point of view or as he puts it « the history of the people ». 

We can see the major differences between the two when we look at two clear examples : The American constitution and the colonisation of the Americas by Christopher Columbus.  

1) Looking behind the names and dates. 

Often we focus on the great names and the great events but not what is behind them – what interests they represent or what motives they may have. For example, let’s look at what the sources say about the writers of  the American constitution: 

Wikipedia: 

« 74 delegates were named, 55 attended and 39 signed. (…) Their depth of knowledge and experience in self-government was remarkable. As Thomas Jefferson in Paris wrote to John Adams in London, « It really is an assembly of demigods. »  

Howard Zinn quotes another social historian, Charles Beard: 

“Beard founds his general analysis of the Constitution on the study of the economic situation and of the political opinion of the 55 men who came at Philadelphia in 1787  to write the American constitution. He notices that the majority of them had studied law; that most were landlords, slave owners and that they owned factories, buildings and shipping companies; that 50% of them had a regular income from savings and that 40 of them (72%) owned government bonds. »

As you may notice there is a significant difference between the two texts. On one hand, Wikipedia talks about their skills, their experience, on the other hand Zinn quoting Beard says who they are, what interests they will represent, or not… For example they are all men – chances are they will not focus on women’s rights, they are slave owners they will not ask for abolition…  

2) History is never neutral : from great events to the history of the people. 

Wikipedia presents itself as exhaustively neutral1 while it is in reality not because the articles are written by humans who are influenced by the social context in which they live. Zinn on the other hand admits that his version of history is neither exhaustive nor n

eutral and says that there are different ways to present history. Equally there are Marxist historians, right-wing historians, anarchist historians, religious historians… Even the most objective historian cannot be neutral for the simple reason that history is written by the winners. A historian bases himself on sources but these are by nature subjective thus even that « ideal » neutral historian would be subjective.  

Wikipedia says: « Spain sponsored a major exploration led by Christopher Columbus in 1492; it quickly led to extensive European colonization of the Americas.” 

Howard Zinn says: Columbus, for his part, wished to send « in the name of the holy trinity as many slaves as he could sell « . All Indians over 14 years old were told to bring back gold and those who did not bring back enough had their hands sliced off and were bled dry ». 

We can easily see the difference Wikipedia focuses on famous names and dates while Zinn focuses on the Indians and the impact of colonisation on those colonised. 

One of the main differences is that Wikipedia will often present the « great » events by listing the facts and the historical figures: the Cuba crisis, the world wars… While Howard Zinn clearly says that he wishes to present the point of view « of the Indians, the workers, the strikers, the unemployed, the slaves » and he will focus more on the class war, on unions, on feminism …   

Wikipedia and similar sources  will focus on the big decisions and Zinn and other like-minded historians  will focus on their impact – it is thus useful to read both in order to have a complete account.  

We should not neglect the small stories that make History. 

Adrien S., S3 FR

Photos via Good Free Photos et History books