When we discussed Bradford today, we discussed whether or not his work was a true history. A point that I wanted to raise in class was that there should be a division of two types of history. Scientific, which aims for objectivity and minimal bias much like an average textbook, and literary which emphasizes the story part of history . I would classify Bradford in the latter category. Bradford shares more in common with Homer than with any contemporary historian. Furthermore, I think that "History of Plymouth Plantation" should be approached like "The Iliad." It is a story, a story rooted in history, yet still primarily a story. More concerned with telling a riveting story, than with telling an accurate story. I also think that the bias in "History of Plymouth Plantation" is intentional, Bradford is biased because he thinks his bias is "true." Bradford believed he is on the side of the divine creator and ruler of the universe, and to approach everything as if the Puritans are 100% unquestionably right leads to obvious, unabashed, bias. Furthermore, as Mr. Lazarow mentioned, the Puritans lived nearly masochistic lives in regard to entertainment, so for them to be a little dramatic (even arguably melodramatic) in the areas where they could be is no surprise. So what is "History of Plymouth Plantation?"I think it is an intentionally biased book that was treated as if a scientific document (although Puritans would be unfamiliar with science in any way we understand it), with some entertainment as a by product.
-Alexander Altaras
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
We have to look at the context in which Bradford's text was written. Remember that most historical texts from Bradford's era and the eras before him were written (or told) as stories. In ancient times most history was told orally not written down, thus in order to capture the attention of the audience the historian had to make the report as interesting as possible. Look at the most popular historical text in the world, The Bible; it is written in exactly the same form: a history but with literary elements that made it more interesting and glorified the religion. Being a presumably very religious man, Bradford was almost guaranteed to copy the style of the most important text to the Puritans.
-Tyler H
I suppose that just as the definitions of most words have evolved, so has the definition of "history." A history, as we would expect today, would be a series of events with little room for judgement. In the time of Bradford's document, perhaps a history was just a retelling of events- not necesarilly without bias.
-Kelsey
I agree with Tyler in that Bradford was reading the Bible and automatically wrote like what he was reading. But we've learned in class that the Puritans are very strict and follow everything the Bible says. So I'm assuming that lying or making up stories would be highly unacceptable. So I don't think anything Bradford wrote was made up to make his story seem more dramatic or interesting. I think he was strictly writing about what happened.
--Callie
Going back to what Alex said, he made a good point by saying Bradford is biased because he believes he isn't biased at all. You also have to realize that his audience, other Puritans, believe Bradford's recollection of history to be pretty accurate simply because they share the same religion. For that same reason, Bradford's audience is also thinks he is being completely objective with his account of history. However, this agreement between Bradford and his audience allows him to exaggerate and slant the story in the Puritan's favor, whether it is intentional or not, since his audience will most likely agree with whatever he says. Therefore, in response to what Callie said, I think she is right by saying Bradford never blatantly lies in his writing, but I think it's a stretch to say his recollection of history is strictly what happened.
-Mike B
Post a Comment