Diversity in Post-Civil War U.S.

¶ … Diversity in Post-Civil War U.S. Historiography

The way we study history colors our view of that history. History itself is a sum of collective experiences that has been synthesized through many sources, each with its own unique perspective. As a people, our history is more valuable the more accurately it is represented.

Each source from which we draw our history contains biases. Histories are comprised of accounts and records of human experience and almost all of these accounts and records are influenced by bias of some sort. For example even the recording of facts, such as birth records, can contain bias in that in some societies, not all births were recorded. Being that each source contains some form of bias, the best way to develop an accurate recording of history is to seek to eliminate the impact of such biases to the best possible degree. Diversification of sources helps to do this.

By seeking information from all sources, the impact of bias is reduced. The perspective of each source will be slightly unique. In using a diverse range of unique sources, the historian will be better equipped to distill alternate views into the history he or she is creating. Because history is the creation of human beings, bias cannot be fully discounted, but by following the principle of diversity in source material counteracting viewpoints can be presented, allowing either the historian or the reader to interpret the history in their own light, more free from bias than if they were presented with a non-diverse history.

Another benefit of diversity in historiography is that it better reflects the human experience. The perspective of an individual human is merely a reflection of the world in one person's eyes. In that way, it is of limited value as a history of a collective group of people, best used only when diversity is not an option, or as part of a diverse set of research. History of any group of people is most accurate and most valuable when multiple viewpoints are considered. The nature of human experience is that our collective experience when it is contemporary is comprised of a myriad of viewpoints. Thus it stands to reason that our history, to reflect this fact, should also be comprised of a myriad of viewpoints.

This is especially true in a society as vast and diverse as post-Civil War United States. Such a history is nearly infinite in its scope, and is comprised of the unique individual histories of thousands of subgroups. The degree of racial, gender and social stratification in this country is such that no one group's view of history can be considered relevant for the nation as a whole. The nation's history is thus the sum of thousands of smaller histories. To consider the nation's history without incorporating these smaller histories would be to reduce both the accuracy and relevance of the work.

The issue of relevance is central to the need for diversity in historiography, especially in a society like the United States. History is full of lessons, inspirational figures, and events that remain resonant in the nation today. For these things to have the most impact, and most value, demands that they be put into some sort of context.

Each subgroup of American takes more from the history of the land when they are able to apply the history presented to them to their own personal culture and experiences. Many elements of history retain their value across racial, gender and other cultural lines but some elements have special meaning to their respective groups. Even if a broad history has synthesized these elements, for maximum value to an individual group, that group's history should also be broken out, so that members of that group can see how their history contributes to the nation's history as a whole.

Another reason we need to incorporate the individual histories of specific identity groups is so that members of other groups can understand the position of each identity group's history in relation to the broader history of the nation. Understand the unique perspectives of the various groups that comprise our collective group enables us to more effectively cut through bias, because it gives us a sense of the other group's perspective. Knowing these differing perspectives also allows for better cross-transfer of ideas, which in turn fosters better understanding. Moreover, it allows us to learn stronger lessons from history, and to put today's events in a more clear perspective.