287,294 Pages

An official history is a work of history which is sponsored, authorised, or endorsed by its subject. The term is most commonly used for histories which are produced at a government's behest.[1] However, the term may also encompass, for example, company histories, i.e. histories of commercial companies which the company itself has commissioned. An official biography (one written with the permission, cooperation, and perhaps participation of its subject or its subject's heirs) is often known as an authorized biography.

Official histories frequently have the advantage that the author or authors have been given access to archives, interview subjects and other primary sources which would be closed or inaccessible to independent historians. However, because of the necessarily close relationship between author and subject, such works may be (or be perceived to be) partisan in tone, and to lack historical objectivity. In fact, the extent to which official histories are partisan varies considerably: some are indeed little more than exercises in public relations and promotion, whereas in other cases the authors will have retained sufficient independence to be able to express negative as well as positive judgements about their subjects.

Historical official histories[edit | edit source]

There is a long tradition of histories being written or published under official patronage: they include, for example, the Anglica Historia (drafted by 1513 and published in 1534), a history of England written by Polydore Vergil at the request of King Henry VII; and William Camden's Annales Rerum Gestarum Angliae et Hiberniae Regnate Elizabetha (1615-1627), a history of the reign of Elizabeth I of England. In early modern Europe, certain royal courts appointed official historians: these included the Rikshistoriograf in Sweden from 1618, the Historiographer Royal in England from 1660, and the Historiographer Royal in Scotland from 1681. The Scottish post is still in existence.

Modern official histories[edit | edit source]

Modern governments have commissioned official histories for a range of purposes. These include promoting the government's achievements, reflecting on past practices, commemorating events and providing an authoritative record for other historians to draw from.[1] Military history is a particularly common topic for official histories to cover.[1] Examples of official military histories include the Australian series Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918 and Australia in the War of 1939–1945 and the British series History of the Great War and History of the Second World War.

Official histories of Conflicts[edit | edit source]

One of the main topics that are being addressed by official histories is conflicts that the countries have been involved in. In such cases, the state institutions produce histories that include the historical narratives of the conflicts. Typically, these narratives are biased in favor of the country presenting them, portraying unrealistically itself positively and/or its rival negatively. These histories can be produced by various state institutions such as the Ministry of Education, national information Centers, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and armies.[2]

Such an example is the official histories of the State of Israel regarding the 1948 Palestinian exodus (the exodus of some 650,000 Palestinians during their war, with several Arab countries, against the Jews/Israeli-Jews). The causes for this exodus were addressed by various Israeli state institutions such as the National Information Center,[3] the Israeli army (IDF)[4] and the Ministry of Education[5] (through its approved history and civics textbooks). Between 1949 and 2004, these institutions presented regarding the causes for the exodus the Zionist narrative (i.e., the Palestinians left willingly in 1948 due to calls of their and Arab leaders to leave or due to fear). That is, there was not expulsion of Palestinians by the Jewish/Israeli-Jewish fighting forces. All this, despite the fact that expulsions did take place in 1948, as asserted, since the late 1970s, even by most Israeli-Jewish scholars. There was one exception, though – the Ministry of Education presented since 2000 the critical narrative of the exodus (at time called post-Zionist). That is, that some Palestinians left willingly, for various reasons, while others were expelled.[6] Similar tendency was practiced also by the Palestinians – their official history, as it is manifested in their approved textbooks, presented since the early 2000s the Palestinian narrative about the exodus (i.e., all the Palestinians were expelled). All this, despite evidence, even from Palestinian scholars, that some of the Palestinians left willingly in 1948 and were not expelled.[7]

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 MacIntyre, Stuart (2001). "Official history". In Graeme Davison, John Hirst and Stuart Macintyre. The Oxford Companion to Australian History (Oxford Reference Online ed.). Oxford University Press. 
  2. Nets-Zehngut, Rafi. (2013). Israeli approved textbooks and the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Israel Studies, 18 (3), 41
  3. Nets-Zehngut, Rafi. (2008). The Israeli National Information Center and collective memory of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Middle East Journal, 62 (4), 653-670.
  4. Nets-Zehngut, Rafi. (2013) The Israeli army's representation of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (1949-2004). War in History.
  5. Nets-Zehngut, Rafi. (2013). Israeli approved textbooks and the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Israel Studies, 18 (3), 41-68.
  6. Nets-Zehngut, Rafi. (2012). Overview of the Israeli memory of the Palestinian refugee problem. Peace Review, 24 (2), 187-194.
  7. Nets-Zehngut, Rafi. (2011). Palestinian autobiographical memory regarding the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Political Psychology, 32 (2), 271-295.

Further reading[edit | edit source]

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.