Difference Between Multiculturalism And Oral History

2733 Words11 Pages
Multiculturalism and Oral History
The older position in history is that history should be expressed scientifically with facts and reliable data; however a newer opinion is that all history is subject to vagaries of perception and interpretation. This relativism is the root of most post-modern thought in the field and such relativism is vehemently denied by traditionalists. The issue with relativism is the absurdity that it can take when not restrained by logic; such as refraining to ascribe higher truths to certain histories and insisting on the possibility of exploring every possible gap between the past as it may have been and it’s rendering. In this scenario history could become an endless battle of subjectivity with no acceptance of scientific facts and fail to ever reach at least preliminary conclusions. It is nevertheless critical that certain aspects of post-modernism begin to be embraced by all historians, especially multiculturalism and Reconstructionist methods in light of new global perspectives.
Multiculturalism by its purest definition refers to the presence of people of diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds within a single polity and as an ideology it supports the preservation of distinctive heritages of minorities. There are varying degrees of multiculturalism, however “Hard” multiculturalism is an encompassing ideology maintaining that “the very purpose of politics is to affirm group difference.”
The victors tend to be the authors of history, and the
Open Document