that confirm the concept that history can have elements of objectivity but is still to a certain extent subjective. First, scientists say that our perceptions are caused by things in the world that trigger our senses, which finally produce our perceptual experiences. With this concept in mind it is fair to say that our perceptions provide us with information about reality, but do not mirror it exactly. In other words, our perceptions cannot give us a complete objective view of history but can only provide us with some elements of objective truth. Although our perceptions of the past do not reflect the whole truth and consistently correspond with the world because of the subjectivity involved, they do provide some objective information about the world as they were partly caused by it.The characteristics that make up memory all contribute to its’ complete subjective nature. It is subjective to personal prejudice, emotions and forgetfulness. History is considerably more objective than memory however it still contains elements of subjectivity. History unlike memories complete fragmentation has a systematic structure. Histories basis on archives means that to a certain extent it can be objective and if history is abundantly supported by unambiguous evidence or reflects part of the current world it is reasonable to say that history is more objective than memory. Though this is not to say that history is completely objective as it too has elements of subjectivity. History is neither scientific nor mechanical, the ideal history, completely objective and dispassionate, is an illusion; as there is bias in the choice of a subject, bias in the selection of material, bias in its organization and presentation, and, inevitably, bias in its interpretation. Consciously or unconsciously, all historians are biased. Due to memories completely subjective nature, history although also being somewhat subjective, it is a great deal more objective than...
