|
Home
I
DVD Store I
Online History Books
I Video Guides
I
Historical Documents Index
I Customer Service
I About Us
History…from Whose
Perspective?
The American Testimony and the Question of Worldview
An explanation from Bryan Hardesty, Executive Producer
The Point-of-View Dilemma
I first glimpsed the image to the left while attending a conference on worldview
many years ago. This high-contrast ink illustration was originally employed by
Harvard Business School’s Thomas Kuhn to demonstrate the influence of personal
paradigms in interpreting data. (Stephen Covey reintroduced the picture to a
broader audience in his book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.)
To me, it seemed quite evident that this was an image of a lovely young
Parisian-style lady, looking over her shoulder to her right. To my amazement,
however, the person sitting next to me muttered that the picture was obviously
of an old, ugly, frowning woman with a wart on her nose, looking downward.
My seating neighbor and I were looking at the exact same
picture, and yet we saw completely different things. What’s more, each of us
thought the other person was nuts, for the illustration seemed to clearly depict
only one thing. After a bit of discussion, I learned that what appeared to me to
be the young Parisian lady’s left earlobe was interpreted by my neighbor as the
old woman’s left eye. What I saw as the lovely gal’s necklace was viewed by the
person next to me as the downtrodden hag’s mouth.
The experience instilled in me the realization that personal
perspective can easily influence our interpretations of raw data. Though we may
make every effort to be unbiased, fair, and objective, it can sometimes be
difficult to “see” something through the eyes of others.
In making the U.S. history video series, The American
Testimony, my company was faced with the same challenge that has plagued
others who have tried to tell this nation’s story: presenting the facts with as
little personal filtering as possible. We concede that this is not entirely
possible. The very task of condensing endless volumes of historical information
down to a manageable, 20-hour video series (as well as its associated e-book
text series) requires editorial decisions over what facts to include and what to
leave out. This selective act gives the author and movie-maker (in this case,
me) a certain level of control over the way the information is presented. The
question is: can the resulting body of work be trusted?
The Empirical Argument
Some people have argued that all history is invalid because
it is skewed by the worldview of its storytellers. That notion is flawed; for
wherever empirical truth is present, personal opinion can be neutralized. As
applied to history, empirical truth is defined as testable, observable evidence,
or well-corroborated, indisputable eyewitness testimony. The test of a
trustworthy historian, therefore, is measured by the level of empirical facts
cited, as opposed to unproven theories, myths, legends, and perceived
assumptions. We can accept as empirical fact—not opinion—that Japanese bombers
attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. We can accept as empirical fact—not
opinion—that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated at Ford’s Theater in Washington,
DC. We can accept as empirical fact—not opinion—that two commercial airline jets
were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center on the morning of
September 11, 2001. Thus, the structural framework of history can be built with
empirical facts. Unfortunately, framework alone leaves a body incomplete. If we
are to learn the lessons taught by history, we must examine causes and
circumstances behind each outcome of consequence, as well as the motives of
those whose actions helped shaped the course of events.
A Worldview Shaped by Evidence
Prior to scripting The American Testimony, an enormous
amount of research was conducted to ensure that any observations of causative
effects were based on empirical evidence, rather than personal opinions or
prevailing assumptions. We embarked on the project with constant vigilance,
checking our own feelings, worldviews, and agendas before proceeding. We simply
wanted to learn and report the truth. The project, in turn, became a revelatory
journey that unraveled many of the long-standing notions we held.
It is important to point out that any worldview espoused in
the resulting video series was formulated during the course of the empirical
research phase. We did not selectively sift through the data, amplifying only
those points that supported pre-established personal viewpoints. Nay, we
endeavored to set aside all preconceived ideological positions before embarking
on this project. The resulting tone of The American Testimony was
thereafter shaped by the evidence we uncovered.
The Touchy Issue of Religious Faith and American History
The first volumes of The American Testimony were
released in 1996, and the full series was completed in early 2001. The updated,
DVD edition that is now available came out near the end of 2006. The series has
been overwhelmingly embraced by high school and college students, homeschooling
parents, private and public school teachers, and history enthusiasts all over
the world. Each week, thousands of people peruse the online text version
available on this website. After all these years, I can still count on just one
hand the number of accusations of bias or historical revisionism directed
towards us.
In returning the DVD series for a refund, one disgruntled
customer (a school teacher, if memory serves) from Tallahassee, Florida wrote:
“These are well done but unusable because of their heavy religious emphasis and
bias. You should warn customers.” (He never stated which religion he felt we
were biased toward.)
Okay, be forewarned: religious faith, especially
Christianity, receives due credit for its role in the birth to this nation. But
that aspect arises from the evidence, not personal agendas. We simply chose not
to follow the “politically correct” trend of censoring empirical information
about the profound and undeniable role of the Christian faith in the early
colonization and founding of the United States.
Let’s face it: the Pilgrims did not
risk almost certain death, sailing across a vast ocean to an inhospitable land,
ever forsaking loved ones on European shores, for any other reason than
religious freedom. For more than a century thereafter, virtually every document
of community covenant, social contract, and legal interaction invoked the name
of Jesus Christ. In reading diaries, journal entries, and correspondences of key
figures in America’s past, we found that faith in God and devotion to Christ
were predominant motivating factors; so much so that we could never have
presented an accurate portrait of early America without reporting such things.
In fact, the transformation of thirteen isolated, competing colonies into a
single, unified national identity known as “American” was the direct result of
the Great Awakening, a widespread Christian revival movement. National days of
prayer and fasting were commonplace during many of the early presidencies.
Should we have suppressed that information? We felt it would be irresponsible to
do so. On the other hand, we weren’t going to ignore the human foibles of
certain Christian communities, either. (Ever hear of the Puritans of Salem,
Massachusetts? If not, rest assured that you can learn about them in The
American Testimony.)
Historical Truth vs. Superficial Presumption
It was important for us to gain an understanding of motives
and causes from all sides of an issue of historical significance. Take the
example of America's inaccurately-named Civil War. Most official accounts
of the conflict have reflected a predominately Northern perspective. To gain
insight into the Southern cause as well, our research of historical archives led
to some unexpected findings, demolishing many of our own long-held notions,
including the assumption that Confederate soldiers were, by and large, slave
owners. Our jaws dropped when the 1860 census revealed that a whopping 94
percent of residents in slave states did NOT own slaves. We were further
flummoxed to discover that 700 Americans of African descent fought—fully
armed—on the side of the Confederacy in the first battle of Bull Run. We also
read Union Army field reports stating that up to a third of Stonewall Jackson’s
forces in Maryland were black Confederates. There was even a rarely seen
document where famed abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass complained
about the “many colored men in the Confederate Army.” Additionally, we uncovered
records verifying that 13,000 Hispanic volunteers and 8 Cherokee Indian
regiments fought on the side of the South. These facts flew in the face of every
belief we held about southern, “white” motives in the Civil War, and whenever we
tried to dismiss one paradigm-challenging document as unreliable, we would end
up uncovering other sources that confirmed its authenticity. Life would have
been much easier if we just went along with the politically-correct current of
thought; but we could not, in good conscience, suppress the myth-busting truth.
This Civil War anecdote is but one of many instances where deep research led to
unexpected revelations that challenged the “prevailing wisdom” of our current
culture.
Judgment Calls
Although our quest has been to maintain a “just the facts”
approach, this does not mean we completely shied away from making assessments
and judgment calls. We simply made sure we could back up the conclusions we
drew. The title of the eighth volume of The American Testimony is The
"New Deal" Autocracy and World War 2. Yes, the word “autocracy”
certainly sounds opinionated on the surface, but it accurately reflects a period
in the nation’s history when the legislative and judicial branches of government
deferred to the heavy-handed will of the executive branch (although the
judiciary fiercely resisted at first).
Evaluations of American presidents were based on simple
criteria: how well they adhered to their duties as defined by
The Constitution of the
United States, and how fervently they upheld their oaths to that document’s
stated restrictions on their governing power. Party affiliation played no role.
Honest, objective economic findings could be more readily
assessed since they tended to rely upon empirical statistical data. (The
exception occurs when people of a particular social, ideological, or political
mindset choose to emphasize or omit data in such a way as to deceptively advance
a viewpoint.) Repeated outcomes have a way of weeding out the wheat of sound
economic principles from the chaff of irrational methodologies. Thus, we ended
up favoring the well-tested, empirical-based works of Adam Smith, Milton
Friedman, and Dr. Thomas Sowell over the abstract, wishful-thinking theories of
Karl Marx or even John Maynard Keynes.
Where We Stand Now
I could cite countless other examples of how we arrived at
the perspective from which we came to tell America’s story, but that would be
far too time consuming. I can only say that we did not set out to produce this
video series for the purpose of proselytizing or advancing a particular
religious viewpoint; but by disclosing the most pertinent facts about this
nation’s founding, we ended up with a narrative that naturally appealed to
Christian viewers (especially the first 3 or 4 volumes of the series). That does
not mean we glossed over historical events where people did awful things in the
name of religion.
The experience of extensive research into the writings of the
nation’s founders left us with a profound respect for many of their ideals. A
deeper sense of patriotism was stirred as we delved into myriad written accounts
of heroism, self-sacrifice, and devotion to a cause by various individuals. Yes,
we drew inspiration from these historical figures, but never turned a blind eye
to their character flaws. (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
Benjamin Franklin sired kids out of wedlock. There you go.)
In our research, we acquired newfound respect for the
Constitution. In this present age, I suppose that will leave us more attuned to
conservative and libertarian viewpoints than those of present-day liberals. While our
evidence-based disdain for communism tends to push us away from modern
liberalism, an equal disdain for elitism and racism aligns us with classical
liberals.
Thus, I’ll repeat that the predominately pro-Christian,
conservative-leaning, and patriotic tone of The American Testimony is simply the
product of empirical research, not some preconceived ideological mindset.
The Reliability Question
Our research has not ceased. Even after the initial VHS
version of The American Testimony was released, we never assumed the
series was 100 percent error-free. That’s because the archival sources
themselves were written by humans with their own individual perspectives.
Occasionally, we gain a new piece of information that alters our initial
findings. We may also learn that a piece of historical data, from which we draw
certain conclusions, will turn out to be an inaccurate account. In updating the
series for DVD release, we had to make a few corrective revisions (nothing
major). From time to time, we’ve also been known to tweak the text version on
this website. All the same, we confidently proclaim that we made the most
accurate video series of its kind.
As an analogy, think about the water that comes out of your
kitchen faucet. Is it 100% pure? No. But the pollutants it contains are usually
so tiny and so few in number that the life-giving properties of the water, on
the whole, are not diminished. The danger occurs when not enough pollutants are
removed from the water supply. By the same token, we can view the wisdom gleaned
from history as life-giving water, while looking upon historical inaccuracies
and worldview distortions as the pollutants that threaten to poison the
information. Because the historical record can be tainted by subjective
interpretation, there is no way to assure that the story we tell is 100% pure.
There will be a few particles of error here and there, and we’ll snatch them out
whenever they’re detected. But the water of knowledge is so essential that a few
miniscule impurities should never keep us from drinking.
We therefore reject the cynical notion that all history is
suspect because it is subject to personal interpretation. Whenever presented
honestly, history serves as our treasured repository of lessons learned.
Home
I
DVD Store I
Online History Books
I Video Guides
I
Historical Documents Index
I Customer Service
I About Us
|