History vs. Memory

Paper Summary:

This paper defines history as presenting facts without expressing any opinion or analysis of the events whereas memories are comprised of emotions that can have a great influence on the actual event. This paper examines the various mistakes of researchers who may take a piece of primary documentation as the absolute truth about an historical event. This paper probes the effects of emotion on memory which is important in evaluating primary sources for inclusion in factual research projects. The writer also explores the vast responsibilities of historians to preserve events in the most accurate manner possible, as well as the various methods of researching history.
Topics covered in this report include:
Emotion and Memory
Politics and Expression of Opinions
The Question of Personal Viewpoint
Historiography - Bringing History to Life or a Piece of Historical Fiction
Conclusion
Works Cited

From the Paper:

"The historiographer treats the person as a character and tries to devote equal time to historical accuracy and building the person as an interesting character. The historiographer is the middle ground between and strict historian and a historical fiction writer and many tend to lean one way or another. The purpose of a historiography is to give depth to a historical event. A straight history presents the facts in an often-dry manner and places more emphasis on what happened. It does little to answer the question of why it happened."

More papers on History vs. Memory:

• Research Paper # 14990 : "Memory Research"
• Research Paper # 51948 : "Social Memory in North East Africa"
• Analytical Essay # 14964 : "The Bridge Of Dreams" ( Jun'ichiro Tanizaki ) and "The Holy Man Of Mount Koya" ( Izumi Kyoka )"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: