INTRODUCTION

Man by nature is a historical being. There is no doubt that history makes or gives us a

better understanding of our past experience. In that case, history can be synonymous with

mirror. History mirrors our past before us. Meaning, it makes our life to become richer when

past and present illumines one another. It is not possible for one to have a future without the

past? Can we do without our past? Can we build on nothing? Will there be the present and the

future without the past? Here we can see that history cannot be removed from the nature of

man. As earlier stated, history mirrors reality. The pertinent question therefore is; is it what

happened actually that history mirrors or what the historian or his school of thought wants?

Human beings as social beings cannot but associate with one another. They influence one

another. Meaning, they are political beings in nature.

Politics in the ordinary sense has to do with power, but in this context, politics will be

taking to mean as having the will to influence people and be influenced. As in politics of

historical interpretation, so many factors come into play. The way the historian views the

universe, the societal influenced and so on. According to Karl Jaspers, history sometimes

appears to be a chaos of accidental happenings, an eddying flood. It passes on from one

turmoil, from one catastrophe to the next.1 Some scholars are of the view that history has no

meaning, no unity, no structure, but reveals only innumerable chains of causality and

morphological organisms such as it occur in the natural process.

It is a pellucid fact that man has been living for hundreds of thousands of years.2 For

ten of thousands of years, there have been men exactly like us anatomically as it shown by

painting of tools. But is it only in the last five to six thousand years that we had a

documented, coherent history. In this light therefore, can what happened several years before

the advent of paper documentation be objectively documented with the aid of a historian?

1 Karl Jasper; Ralph Mainhein (Trans.), Way to Wisdom; An Introduction to Philosophy, (New Haven; Yale
University Press 1954) P.96
2 This has been proven by the bones found in geological strata which can be dated.
1
Can history be verified? The past has vanished and our ideas about them cannot be verified as

in the case of scientific hypotheses.

My concern in this term paper therefore, is to critically examine the politics of

historical interpretation. Historians are human beings and human beings are social beings, as

such they cannot run away from the influenced of the society. Since a historian is also a

social being, he/she must have been influenced by one way or the other. Now can he/she

distinct himself/herself from these influences during the process of interpretation, or he/she

interprets history under some the societal influences which may not be objective in itself? Is

there a way a historian can interpret history without societal influence? These and more

question shall be my primary concern in this work. For the purpose of proper analysis and

understanding, I shall proceed to conceptualization of concepts, the factors that influence a

historian will be examined as well. I shall also show in this work whether history can be

objective or not. This shall be followed by evaluation and conclusion.

WHAT IS POLITICS

Politics cuts across all areas of human life. That is, in the Governmental realm, in the

church, business firm, trade union, clubs, political parties, civil association, in the education

sector, and so on. Everyone, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are involved in one fashion

or the other. Politics is an unavoidable fact of human existence. Man is political in nature, he

cannot but politicize. The word, politics, in our contemporary epoch, has been associated

with the struggle for power and authority. In this context, this will not be the way politics will

be construed. In this context, politics will be taken to mean any human relationship that

involves to a significant extent, control and influence. In other words, it has to do with the

right will to be able to convince people.

According to Alapiki, Politics in some sense is a public activity that involves public

purposes, or public interest, or a public good, or some other distinctly public aspect of human
life. In ordinary language today, it often refers to as self-seeking and self-promoting activity

of ambitious politicians.3 Politics is one aspect of great activity of human activities and

institutions. In all society, you cannot find people who do not concern themselves with the

politics of their society nor participate actively in political life. According Aristotle, man is a

political animal. Meaning, man cannot but politicize. Put differently, meaning that in one way

or the other, man must influence others or be influenced by others.

WHAT IS HISTORY

History has to do with the human past. Our organized events of the past or

representations of the past. History focuses on how man understands, explains and interprets

the past in relation to the present. History has many meanings. It may be taken to mean

events and actions that together make up the human past. On the other hand, history may

mean the account given of that past and modes of investigation on which they been arrived at

or construed. The term history is in itself ambiguous. It covers the totality of past human

actions and the narratives or account we construct of them. The essential task of the historian

is to discover individual facts about the past, just as it is the essential task of perception to

discover individual facts about the present. And just as the data perception constitute the

material on which the sciences works, so the data of the historian provide material for the

social sciences, who business it is to contribute to the all importance sciences of man. It is of

paramount importance to assert that historians are not content with the simple discovery of

the past facts.4 They ‘aspire’, at least not only to say what happened, but at least to show why

it happened. History is not just a plain record of past events, but what I shall call ‘a

significant record’ ---- an account in which events are connected together. According to

historians, there are laws of history just as there are laws of nature.

History can also be construed as a kind of research or inquiry that is concern with

actions of human beings that have been done in the past. History proceeds by interpretation of

3 Alapiki, politics and Government in Nigeria, (Port Hartcount; multicrafiks publication, 2006) P.10
4 Meaning, they are not that limited to the content only. That is, relating it as it happened only.
3
evident.5 The most striking thing about history is that the fact it purports to discover are past

facts. And past facts are no longer accessible to direct inspection. According to Fichte,

History as a whole is the unfolding of plain, the development of something.6 The essentials of

history are with the human experience and actions. It is true that history records not merely

what human beings did and suffered, but also a considerable number of natural events in the

past. For instance, the issue of earthquakes, floods, drought, and so on. History takes place or

fulfills itself in space and time.7 Humans carry out all their operations as historical beings.

For instance, to be historical, it must be related to the humans. That is, to the human family

not just to individuals as such.

Moreover, according to Robert J. Olesen, history is the knowledge of man’s past. 8

History can also mean the scientific elaborated knowledge of the past. According to Patrick

Gardiner,

Nature is involved in a constant process of reflective

self-transformation, in the sense that men are to be
found continually modifying, revising and
supplementing the inherence of skills, attitudes and
mode of experiencing the world which they receive
from their predecessors and hand on to their
successors.9

Historical knowledge is irreducibly different from scientific knowledge. It is only by

historical inquiry ‘so conceived’ that men can even acquire an acceptable understanding of

himself, a true grasp of his diverse and changing power an agent in the world. In the words

of Issawima Charles,

History is the record of human society, our world

civilizations of the challenges that take place in the
nature of that society such as savagery, sociability and
group solidarity of revolutions and uprising by one self
of against another with the resulting kingdom and state
which various ranks of the different activities and

5 Evident here refer to facts, things that has happened that the historian wants to communicate to us.
6 Collongwood R. G., The Idea of History, (Madras; Oxford University Press, 1966) P.106
7 This means that outside space and time, we cannot talk of history.
8 Robert J. Olesen (Trans.), The Meaning of History, (Baltimore-Dublin; Helicon Publication, 1960) P.33
9 Patrick Gardiner (ed), Philosophy of History,(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974) P.5
 occupation of man, when they are forgoing their
livelihood or the various sciences and craft, and in
general of all the transformations that the society
undergoes by its very nature …10
Down the ages, there has been a constant debate about the methodology of

history. The question that always confronts every epoch of man is; how can history be

interpreted? Some scholars are of the view that history should take after the methodology of

science. Meaning that it should try to formulate laws like; generalizations and then test them

empirically. The second school of thought are of the view that historians must endeavour to

understand historical events and interpret them accordingly knowing fully well that law – like

generalizations have little or no central role in an interpretation. Also, Schelling has

conceived history in a way distinctive of the above, for him

History consists of the thought and actions of minds,

which are not only intelligible but intelligent, intelligible
to themselves, not merely to something other than
themselves. Hence they are a more adequate embodiment
of the absolute because they contain in themselves both
side of the knowledge-relation, they are subjects as well
as object. As objectively intelligible, the activity of the
mind in history is necessary. As subjectively intelligent, it
is free.11
History is not merely ascertained as so much fact but understood by apprehending the

reason why the factors happened as they did.

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Historical interpretation has to do with the way in which a historian interprets history.

It involves a kind of reenacting or re-living in one’s imagination of the historical moment to

be interpreted. In order for historians to interpret historical events properly, they must have an

incredibly knowledge of general background knowledge about the culture within which the

book was written.12 Historians must employ considerable social and historical knowledge if

they are to do their job well. Also, it can mean an educational activity which aims to reveal

10 Issawima Charles (Trans.), An Arab Philosophy of History,( London, John Murry Publication, 1969) P.26
11 Collongwood R. G Ibid. P. 112
12 That is, the book which the historians uses in written about a particular group of people. For instance, use
historical books that were written about Africans by the Westerners.
5
meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and

illustrative media, rather than to simply communicate factual information.13 Interpretation is a

planned effort to create for the visitor an understanding of the history and significance of

events, people, and objects.14Historical Interpretation is an effective, evocative, educational

translation of the human condition in the past into a meaningful present through period-

appropriate objects, firsthand accounts, manual experience, and media.15 Also according to

Willem A,

In translationist theory, the written history text is the

translation of the historical action into contemporary
terms, and remains accomplished history as long as the
contemporary situation itself has not appreciably
changed. Historians do not translate actions in the sense
of producing something of the same kind. Historians
produce descriptions of actions, not the action
themselves.16

Historical interpretation is an effective, evocative, educational translation of the human

conditions in the past into a meaningful present…17

POLITICS OF HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

The politics of historical interpretation has to do with various factors, circumstances,

rules, paradigm and interpretation that come in to affect the way historians interpret past’s

events. It has to do with the problem of objectively. According to W.A. Walsh, there are laws

of nature and historians ought to concentrate on making these laws explicit.18 Another

argument figures prominently in Sir Isaiah Berlin’s essay Historical Inevitability.19 Also, the

historian’s background to a greater level, affects the way he/she interprets history. The ethical

13 Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage (Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1957) P.8.

14 William T. Anderson and Shirley Payne Low, Interpretation of Historic Sites (Nashville: American
Association for State and Local History, 1985; Second Edition) P. 3.

15 Stacy F. Roth, Past into Present: Effective Techniques for First-Person Historical Interpretation (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998): 10.

16 Willem A., History and Theory; Studies in the History of Philosophy, Vol. XXII, number 3, 1983.
17 Williams T. Anderson, and Shirley Op cit. P. 3
18 W.H.Walsh, Introduction to Philosophy of History (London Hutchinson & Co-Publishers Ltd. 1967 )p 18
19 Patrick Gardiner (ed). The Philosophy of History London Oxford University Press 1974 p. 13.)
norms that guide a history also affect his mode of interpretation.

FACTORS THAT AFFECTS HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

All records, by the very nature are liable to error; they contain factors which makes it

erroneous. According to Lovejoy, the historical selection should be determine not by what

seems relevant or important to the historians or his/her own contemporaries but solely by

what seemed to be so in the eyes of the historical persons with whom he is concerned. 20 The

first these factors is partisanship towards a creed or opinion. For when the mind receives in

a state of neutrality and moderation any piece of information, it gives to that information its

due share of investigation and criticism, so as to disengage the truth it contains through

errors; should the mind however, be biased in favour of opinion or creed? Should one accept

every favourable piece of information concerning opinion? Therefore acts as a bliker to the

mind, preventing it from investigating and criticism and inclining to the reception and

transmission of error.

The second factor is over-confidence in ones source when the historian depend

solely on a particular source may be a book that is not ‘containing all’ that took place during

the event in question. Also, another reason is failure to understand what is intended. Thus,

many chronicler falls into error by failing to grasp the real meaning of what he has seen or

heard by relating the account to what he thinks or imagines. Also, the inability to place an

event in its real context, owning to the obscurity and complexity of the situation. The desire

to gain the favour of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame, by

flattery them, by embellishing their doings and by interpreting in the most favourable way all

their action. Ignorance of the laws governing the transformations of human society is

also another factor.

Exaggeration is another factor. We find that most of our contemporaries historians

instead of relating what happened he/she will add or remove. These are not making historical

20 Patrick Gardiner (ed). Ibid, P. 12

7
interpretation objective. Ignorance of the transformations that occur in the condition of

epochs and people with the passage of time and change of periods. Every period, has its

own unique characters. Therefore, penetrating into every detail of its life. Put differently,

historians should understanding that a particular epoch has a peculiar system or method of

approach; therefore, understanding the period of history in which a historian lived will assist

to understanding history and interpreting it well. But in our society today, it is the case that

historians are using the methodology peculiar to nineteenth century for twenty-first century.

CAN HISTORY BE OBJECTIVE?

Every historian will perhaps reply to the above question in the affirmative. Every

reputable historian acknowledges the need for some sort of objectively and impartiality in his

work; condemns those writers who allow their feelings and personal preoccupations to affect

their reconstruction of the past as bad workmen who do not know their work. As a way of

further expatiation, in interpretation, personal likes and dislikes will come into play,

prejudices, different assumptions and associations will come into play as well. Also, the

influence from religion, ethnic group, social class and so on will come into play as well. Also,

the school of thought that a historian belongs may also affect his approach in historical

interpretation. For instance Karl Marx (a Marxist) will see the ultimate explanation of all

historical events in the operation of economic facts.

One of the things which strikes the outsider most when he/she looks at history is

the peculiarity of divergent account of the same subject which he finds. Each generation finds

it necessary to rewrite the histories written by its predecessors. At any given time and place

there are available different and apparently inconsistent versions of the same set of events,

each of them, claiming to give, the whole truth about it. The interpretation of one’s historian

are indignantly repudiated by another, and how to reconcile them is not apparent, but depend

on ultimate preconceptions which in this case are emphatically not universally shared.21

21 W.H.Walsh, Op cit. p 97
From the above therefore can we say that history is objective when there are reveries among

historians? Objectivity has to do with general view about something. In other words,

disassociating oneself completely from all kinds of biases and prejudices. Since there is no

general view or opinion among the historians their account cannot be said to be objective. It

is more problematic.

EVALUATION / CONCLUSION

History of course has to do with human past. It is a kind of reenactment. It

mirrors our past realities into the present. The importance of history in our day to day life

cannot be overemphasis. The question therefore is; how can history be interpreted as being

distinctive of our human biases and prejudices. Human beings no doubt are ethnic oriented

and they are also driven by power and prestige. Each tradition wants to be recongnised as the

rational group as such historians do a lots of damages to other people’s tradition during the

course of interpretation. The theory of Absolute Spirit by Hegel is a clear example of this. In

the faces of all these, can we say that history actually mirror our past or it mirrors something

like our past. Therefore as a way of conclusion it becomes apparent to say that history as it is

presented to us by the historian is not history in itself rather a subjective history which

actually cannot give us the opportunity of accessing and assessing our past objectively.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alapiki, Politics and Government in Nigeria, (Port Hartcount; multicrafiks publication, 2006)

---------- political Parties and Political Integration in Nigerian SSSG monograph,No.1

9
 ( Owerri: Spring-publication 1998)

Collongwood R. G., The Idea of History, (Madras; Oxford University Press, 1966)

Easton D., The political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science, (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1953)

Freeman Tilden, Interpreting our Heritage (Carolina: University of North Carolina Press,

1957)

Issawima Charles (Trans.), An Arab Philosophy of History,( London, John Murry Publication,

1969)

Karl Jasper; Ralph Mainhein (Trans.), Way to Wisdom; An Introduction to Philosophy, (New

Haven; Yale University Press 1954)

Lasswell H.D., Politics: who gets what, when and how, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936

Patrick Gardiner (ed), Philosophy of History,(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974)

Robert J. Olesen (Trans.), The Meaning of History, (Baltimore-Dublin; Helicon Publication,

1960)

Stacy F. Roth, Past into Present: Effective Techniques for First-Person Historical

Interpretation (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998)

Truman D., The Governmental process; Political Interest and Public Opinion,(New York:

McGraw 1983)

William T. Anderson and Shirley Payne Low, Interpretation of Historic Sites (Nashville:

American Association for State and Local History, 1985; Second Edition)

Willem A., History and Theory; Studies in the History of Philosophy, Vol. XXII, number 3,

1983.

W.H.Walsh, Introduction to Philosophy of History (London Hutchinson & Co-Publishers

Ltd. 1967 )