Natalie Kjer

TOK

1. We cannot repeat observations of the past. How does the nature of what history studies-
the past-affect the methods of study historians use?
Historians are the people ho have brought knowledge now from their knowledge of the past. This
however is completely subjective and is biased because in a way even if we try not to be we still
are. A lot of occurrences in the past still remain unknown or unsure because there are historians
who have their own way of thinking. This in turn affects their judgment and knowledge set out to
the world.

2. What understanding of documents-what critical literacy- is essential to the methods of
studying history?
Very critical. History should always be backed up with evidence and if a historian does not comply
with evidence then what they are saying would be immensely unreliable. Through the years,
photographs don't only remain as a form of evidence but are away to keep memories fresh in
some sort of way. Photographs are a still of an occurrence and this would come very hand in
understanding history.

3. What makes an event of the past historically significant?
This question is very subjective. However, can be seen as in a way not. Situations that have
cause some sort of innovation I think should be considered historically significant. For example,
WWI should be considered significant because it has changed so many lived and has brought out
so many new things, bad and good. War in general is something that is not treated lightly.

4. Within what constraints do historians work? What comparisons would you draw with
literature?
Historians work in a very similar way that epopee in the field of literature would work. However, if
a historian were to write about situations that actually happened, situations that may be
considered significant in the future. So there is a great deal of knowledge involved. People in
literature can write fiction and non-fiction, usually the writers of non-fiction who talk about history
may be to some people- considered as historians.

5. To what extent do you think the historians should try to preserve an emotional neutrality
to his human subject matter and write in denotative, dispassionate language? Does
neutral language increase or decrease the readers understanding or even emotional
response to the events the writer is talking about?
I think that historians should remain emotionally neural. This would create a less biased way of
how history has been passed down. Like I said, we can never really be sure of what really
happened in the past. Only because historians become favorable to one side. Also, some
historians may not even truly be historians, and are just impressionable people.

6. I accept the berlins argument to a high extent because I do think that in away we
understand the way other people feel because we may go through similar situations or
we feel like we can be connected to more people. However the extent of fully
understanding someone doesn't really apply. We feel things and we do things based on
our emotions and so do others. We try be find a connection with people so that we feel
like we are not alone. This could explains studies in psychology under the branch of
human relations. A good historical explanation to me consists of something that can be
subjective but open-minded. A historian who remains ignorant to me is not considered a
historian despite the fact that there are plenty. Some I probably don't even know for sure.

7. From what Ive learned not only in history class, but in general, that what we perceive
may not really be what is. Our perception on things is called our perception for a reason.
The concept of not having any knowledge on history does not appeal to me because I
think that that is merely impossible. As long as we have memory, we have history. It is
embedded in us. That's why in a way, we cannot blame historians for what they feel or do
because they are human and they see things the way they want to see things. In some
cases that may not be it but sometimes, we try to look past the bad in order to comfort
our own selves.