Data Selection, Essay 2

On data selection
The article seeks to do away with any notion of history being a set of facts. The original account of Silas Deane makes a interesting sidebar to the Revolutionary war narrative and is told with an air of authority and objectivism. It is an account based on the most available sources on this obscure topic. However it is as objective as a blind man’s account of the rope/snake/tree that was an elephant. A different perspective will produce a contradictory account because the information is limited. Truth appears relative and mutable. Objectivism seems unworkable.
How can we ask anything more? A team of prosecutors must assemble a case and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Regardless of the fact of guilt, it is the prosecutor’s job to construct a believable story that is consistent with the facts. An average observer can see the well recorded, public and superficial facts. Left alone, these accounts are objective but incomplete (it is a rope/snake/tree). The master investigator reaches superior conclusions (it is an elephant!) by taking the same evidence and placing it in context, probing contradictions and sifting for more accurate narratives which are yet consistent with the facts.
As teachers this means expecting the one-dimensional views in textbooks to fail repeatedly because history is three-dimensional. Challenging accounts exist and will yet arrive to demand our translation for students.
Boyd’s method was like a cinema prosecutor/investigator. The story began with what “everyone knows”, the objective account. Then Boyd added evidence to challenge the truth claims of the “official account”, like Deane doesn’t seem like a suicide because he was excited to return to the U.S. after exile. Then Boyd added evidence, Bancroft’s biography, then he cross-examined for paradoxes in the account, revealing more and more about their relationships, capabilities, motivations and opportunities. The selection of data was high quality because it was consistent and it all supported Boyd’s ultimate truth-claim, that Bancroft has the means, motive and opportunity to commit Deane’s murder. Boyd’s interpretation is a significant revision to history because it darkens an apparent friendship into a predatory relationship. As educators, it is our responsibility to explain that truth is not wholly dependent on perspective, but that in constructing a perspective it must be consistent with the facts. But, that in sifting the facts, we choose items which are “material to the case”.
My mental image of the construction of history is an elephant being stuffed into a five gallon bucket by someone who is in the other room doing a sudoku. The process is messy, incomplete and ultimately political and moralistic because these perspectives impact sense of purpose, efficacy and esteem. Constructing history as a process, requires more appreciation for the sudoku aspect where the investigation requires tough mindedness. High-quality narratives require accuracy, fine, and the answer to “so what?” Let it make our lives richer, tell us more about the world and human nature than when we first began. To that point, there is nothing significant about Silias Deane’s story, even in the advanced Boyd version. The high-quality construction is Davidson and Lytle’s application of Boyd’s investigation toward our awaking.
As educators we take ourselves for granted. If we do not serve a purpose, then historic forces will replace us with something functional. To prevent that, I recommend that we follow this example and construct accurate, challenging and meaningful lessons.