How to Interpret Historical Information

When an author reports on an event, he is simply providing his interpretation. Though he may want to be as accurate as possible, what he produces will still remain his interpretation. There is a difference between fact (something that cannot be changed), and information (something that is based on interpretation). Two different authors may report the same fact differently. For that reason, when we come across information that appears highly conflicting, we have to weigh it against the author's interpretation.

Say we passed by an event, and we saw that, apart from four reporters from four different newspapers covering the event, there were only two people in the audience. Talking to them, we found out that they were a married couple. We did not stay for the event, but the next day, we read in the four different papers reports that came out.

The reporter for the first newspaper wrote, "The event was an utter disaster. Only two people attended."

The reporter for the second wrote, "The event was a huge success though it attracted fewer than the anticipated 10,000 crowd."

The reporter for the third wrote, "An event for children and not one attended."

The reporter for the fourth wrote, "Men and women came to support the event in equal numbers."

Now I ask you, who told a lie? None of them did, though some may have grossly distorted the truth. Each provided his own interpretation of the fact, though each may have his own bias, and has allowed his bias to intrude into his report. You are able to weigh the magnitude of the distortion based on your privileged information for having passed by the event.

Let's assume you did not pass by the event, and you base your knowledge solely on the reports. If you have access to all four newspapers, you will realise that four different reporters were saying four different things. However, if you have access to fewer than the four, your knowledge will be limited to what you were privileged to read.

Now let's say the event happened a hundred years ago, and all four reporters are now dead and gone. You are a historian researching to find out about that event. What you write and how you document it will be based on your access to what was previously reported. If you have access to only the first and third report, you may write, "The children's event attracted two people but not a single child." If you hold the second and fourth report, you might have interpret it as, "It was a hugely successful event attracting the equal support of men and women." Those are your interpretation of the fact. If you wrote, "There are children at the event," or "There are three people at the event", you have incorrectly interpreted the facts from the reports.

The obstacle faced by historians and authors is that often, we are not privileged to all the information. Often the information we need is not immediately obtainable. They may come in bits and pieces. Often we may have to rely on secondary sources of information, and often the secondary sources distort or incorrectly interpret the facts.

So how do we know whether we are telling the truth? Well, by not relying on a single source. When you read history as reported by modern historians, don't take it as the only truth. Compare it with other sources of information. That will gel your understanding of history and historical events.