Step 1: Find a real-life TOK issue and summarize it, briefly.
This interview discusses whether Rosa Parks is really what she is portrayed by the media.
Step 2: Draw out the knowledge issues in the real-life case.
What is being contested/debated? What WoK/AoK are involved?
- What should be included in history?
- Who gets to decide?
- Should history propagate a myth for a greater purpose? (eg- Helen Keller- inspirational?）
Step 3: Thoroughly analyze at least one of the knowledge issues raised with attention to both arguments for and against. Then offer your own opinion on which side has greater merit.
-1. What should be included in history?
For - Everything should be included in history
Everything should be included in history in order to make history “unbiased”. However, it is impossible to include everything.
Against: Somethings in history should be deliberately left out because it doesn’t “fit” into the picture
Historians=opinionated. Needs to exclude something to support his/her argument
ultimately, history is not the “truth”, because it is just a compilation of events. It is often the interpretation/ data processing of a historian. The historical events may be altered to fit a purpose. For example, in order to imbue nationalism in a state, the history of the state will often be nationalist and positive, while the state’s inner corruption and other bad things they committed would be concealed.
2. Who gets to decide?
Everyone has different perspectives so each person will have a different viewpoint on different issues.
Some historians omit facts from the public because it is all their own opinion on the matter. That’s why there are so many history books on the same subject but they might all be very different from each other because of the different historians viewpoints on that issue. The different views should be given to the public to let them decide themselves on which view they want to believe in. Even if it is new evidence that is found that will totally change how the people view a respectable person from the past, like Rosa Parks, the truth should be revealed to the public and not hidden from them. Some people might not want to change in what they have believed in while there are others will be more willing to change how they think and will want to know the truth on the matter.
3. Should history propagate a myth for a greater purpose?
Sometimes significant parts of history aren’t what they are really portrayed. Yet their portrayal gives a greater purpose and meaning to certain period of history and has often admired numerous people and often represents or symbolizes their representative countries. Some people may argue that it is wrong of historians to omit certain facts about some significant historical moments. But perhaps certain mythical portrayal or representation of history makes the general or bigger picture of history much more sense, in which common people can understand it more. Rosa Parks is often seen as a heroine of civil right movement. What makes her so heroic is that she is just like common people. She’s just a tired old lady who doesn’t want to give up her seat on the bus and moves to the back. This act marks her as a significant figure in the civil right movement. Yet people may get dismayed by the fact that she has been trained to stand up against prejudicial repression. But her certain portrayal in history makes the civil right movement so much more sense and this is why her characteristic has often been seen as the representation of America and its people and energy.
This interview discusses whether Rosa Parks is really what she is portrayed by the media.
Step 2: Draw out the knowledge issues in the real-life case.
What is being contested/debated? What WoK/AoK are involved?
- What should be included in history?
- Who gets to decide?
- Should history propagate a myth for a greater purpose? (eg- Helen Keller- inspirational?）
Step 3: Thoroughly analyze at least one of the knowledge issues raised with attention to both arguments for and against. Then offer your own opinion on which side has greater merit.
-1. What should be included in history?
For - Everything should be included in history
Everything should be included in history in order to make history “unbiased”. However, it is impossible to include everything.
Against: Somethings in history should be deliberately left out because it doesn’t “fit” into the picture
Historians=opinionated. Needs to exclude something to support his/her argument
ultimately, history is not the “truth”, because it is just a compilation of events. It is often the interpretation/ data processing of a historian. The historical events may be altered to fit a purpose. For example, in order to imbue nationalism in a state, the history of the state will often be nationalist and positive, while the state’s inner corruption and other bad things they committed would be concealed.
2. Who gets to decide?
Everyone has different perspectives so each person will have a different viewpoint on different issues.
Some historians omit facts from the public because it is all their own opinion on the matter. That’s why there are so many history books on the same subject but they might all be very different from each other because of the different historians viewpoints on that issue. The different views should be given to the public to let them decide themselves on which view they want to believe in. Even if it is new evidence that is found that will totally change how the people view a respectable person from the past, like Rosa Parks, the truth should be revealed to the public and not hidden from them. Some people might not want to change in what they have believed in while there are others will be more willing to change how they think and will want to know the truth on the matter.
3. Should history propagate a myth for a greater purpose?
Sometimes significant parts of history aren’t what they are really portrayed. Yet their portrayal gives a greater purpose and meaning to certain period of history and has often admired numerous people and often represents or symbolizes their representative countries. Some people may argue that it is wrong of historians to omit certain facts about some significant historical moments. But perhaps certain mythical portrayal or representation of history makes the general or bigger picture of history much more sense, in which common people can understand it more. Rosa Parks is often seen as a heroine of civil right movement. What makes her so heroic is that she is just like common people. She’s just a tired old lady who doesn’t want to give up her seat on the bus and moves to the back. This act marks her as a significant figure in the civil right movement. Yet people may get dismayed by the fact that she has been trained to stand up against prejudicial repression. But her certain portrayal in history makes the civil right movement so much more sense and this is why her characteristic has often been seen as the representation of America and its people and energy.
This ultimately boils down to the idea that everything is opinionated. People cannot process everything they see. Instead, they choose what is important, and what is crucial to fit in the puzzle of their schema. This idea can apply to the natural sciences, psychology, and various other real life issues
No comments:
Post a Comment