ecessarily involves some preconceived notions of where to look and what to look for. Subjectivity, a priori assumptions, and hindsight will undoubtedly direct the historian’s focus and research, as well as colour his interpretation of his findings. A very good example of this is the tendency for leaders of governments or movements to use history as propaganda. Much traditional teaching of history has been utilized for indoctrination, particularly for glorifying the national state and conditioning loyalty in children. Unfortunately, the writing of natural history has been chauvinistic and one-sided, justifying that nation’s achievements and ambitions while glossing over or explaining away its shortcomings and failures. It cultivates an ideology about the nation’s origins and leaders as wise and sacrosanct (the American Founding Fathers, for instance). Comparable pitfalls exist where history is being reinvestigated to lend identity to an ethnic group, such as in Black or Native American History, or to lend credibility to a particular political stand, as in “Left” vs. “Ultra-Right” critiques of American foreign policy. This is not to say that such topics should be avoided or go uninvestigated – it is vital to correct the errors both of commission and omission of past historians. The issue is how to avoid self-serving distortions and to pursue the facts of history as objectively as possible.Furthermore, knowledge of events pursuant to the time in question can significantly skew the relevance of historical material. For example, a nave historian might assume causal links between events or circumstances based solely on temporal contiguity. Why did Rome fall? Was it because Christianity weakened the bonds that had held it together? Was it because people became corrupt? Was it because it just got too big? Was it because of the barbarian attacks? All of the above, or perhaps none of the above? For ...
