The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 marked the beginning of the conflict between the Empire of Japan and the United States of America during the Second World War. The Japanese targeted the Pacific fleet of the United States in order to prevent it from intervening further in the former's war against China, and subsequent plans to expand its operations to Southeast Asia. Our own society's point of view and memories of the conflict are frequently tied to that of America's, but as students of history, we can go beyond this inclination. Conflicts like the second world war highlight that there are many possible interpretations of a past event. We've studied how historians differ in their interpretations for a variety of reasons: their backgrounds are different, the sources they have access to are different, and their biases inevitably affect their work. When two belligerents recount what happened during a war, these interpretations could not be further apart. The question is: When history is designed to create a sense of patriotism in a country's population, does it become flawed? Shouldn't history be more concerned about the retelling of the past rather than the effect it produces in those who study it?
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 marked the beginning of the conflict between the Empire of Japan and the United States of America during the Second World War. The Japanese targeted the Pacific fleet of the United States in order to prevent it from intervening further in the former's war against China, and subsequent plans to expand its operations to Southeast Asia.
Our own society's point of view and memories of the conflict are frequently tied to that of America's, but as students of history, we can go beyond this inclination. Conflicts like the second world war highlight that there are many possible interpretations of a past event. We've studied how historians differ in their interpretations for a variety of reasons: their backgrounds are different, the sources they have access to are different, and their biases inevitably affect their work. When two belligerents recount what happened during a war, these interpretations could not be further apart. The question is:
When history is designed to create a sense of patriotism in a country's population, does it become flawed? Shouldn't history be more concerned about the retelling of the past rather than the effect it produces in those who study it?
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
