"History #1" Response

     The worldview to which one adheres also determines his or her view of history. Perhaps the most unique example of worldview influence on historical interpretation belongs to Postmodernism. In accordance with their vigorous defense of previously oppressed social groups, such as women, homosexuals, and racial minorities, Postmodernists believe that history is not objectively true, as it has mainly been written by the "winners" (i.e., biased, self-righteous white males). Rather, Postmodernists advocate what is called "Revisionist History," which is "[r]ewriting the past to serve an ideological purpose and to empower oppressed social groups" (Noebel, 424). Ironically enough, the Postmodern emphasis on subjectivity, if logically considered, renders Postmodernism's dogmatic rebuke on its definition of "the winners" useless and contradictory to Postmodern philosophy. By so heavily extolling the "oppressed minorities" in society, Postmodern historians actually make "the winners" the new minority (albeit, a more hateful kind of minority). The Postmodern approach to history in terms of its antipathy towards "the winners" and disbelief in objective historical truth point out the ridiculous ignorance of Postmodern history's underpinnings.
     There are a couple of historical examples that disprove Paige's statement. For instance, some of the most accurate descriptions of the Holocaust have been recorded by Jewish people during that time period. Obviously, the Jews were neither winners nor the "oppressive majority" during the Holocaust. In addition, Noebel Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu's famous autobiography I, Rogoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala is a graphic narrative of "the plight of the impoverished Guatemalans languishing under government death squads" (Noebel, 424). In reality, however, "Menchu had told her story to French leftist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray, who actually wrote the autobiography, misrepresenting many 'facts' in her book" (Noebel, 424). Some of the facts she distorted include:

     ...[The] claim[ ] that Menchu, as a female, was denied school, yet she actually

     attended two Catholic boarding schools through seventh grade. The book 

     states that she worked on a plantation under horrible conditions, yet she never set

     foot on a plantation as a child. Also, the author claimed that the local

     villagers saw the Marxist guerrillas as liberators, when in actuality the villagers

     were terrified of them. (Noebel, 424)

Even though Burgos-Debray saw her actions as helpful to the minority (in this case, the Guatemalans), her distortion of historical truth is culturally ignorant and unforgivable. Her actions prove that there is such a thing as an objectively true historical narrative--in this case, such an account was even from what Postmodernists would consider the "minority," Menchu. The fact that Burgos-Debray even saw fit to twist the words of someone who Postmodernists are supposed to support reveals that Revisionist History does not originate in a desire to empower minorities. Rather, it is simply a humanistic effort to bury the one kind of Truth Postmodernism cannot avoid--that of a real historical account--under personal bias. This is not a valid way to interpret history; rather, Historical Revisionism is a desperate attempt to preserve a philosophy advocating personal preference over true morality.
     If history is really a non-objective/non-truthful account written by the winners, then history itself is largely fictitious. Postmodernist Michel Foucault readily admits this: "I am well aware that I have never written anything but fictions...One 'fictions' history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one 'fictions' a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth" (Noebel, 423). Foucault justifies "fictioning history" on the grounds that it may reveal or enhance "political realities" or "historical truth." However, if questions of truth, morality, and past beliefs can only be understood in the cultural/historical periods in which they arose (another Postmodernist assumption, known as Historicism), then neither political realities nor historical truth exist. Therefore, there is no reason to "fiction history," as Foucault puts it. The only reasonable solution to this dilemma, then, is to acknowledge that "the cultural/historical periods" during which issues of morality, truth, and past beliefs arose existed objectively and without need for revision.
     The Postmodern approach to history is indeed unsettling, and threatens to destroy what hundreds of years of archaeological findings, precise oral tradition, and meticulously written historical records have worked to achieve. Whether history is recorded from the perspective of "the winners" or "the minority," one must always remember that such views only differ in values and beliefs--not how to record a true historical fact. For instance, while an "oppressive" white male may describe Abraham Lincoln's assassination with less sadness than an African American whose ancestors were slaves, the truth of the event--that is, that Lincoln was killed by John Wilkes Booth--is unchangeable. The Postmodern aversion to objective historical truth, and subsequent emphasis on historical revision/"fictioning," does not seek to improve Man's understanding of his history. Rather, it only seeks to spread the seed of relativism, and an ultimate rejection of God, into His most significant tool for bringing about Creation's redemption.