|
While it is true somethings are accurate most aren't. For example; it is still debated who was first
to land on America. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes! I think that if they gave everyone equal coverage, the world would be a better place. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
So would you consider the bible to be inaccurate, because i believe so it is. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
History is always inaccurate, mainly because it reflects the biases of both the historian, as well
as the society in which that historian lives. A good historian will recognize this right away and
will not try to write the one "true" authoritative account of a past event, but will instead aim to
provide one angle of a complex story.
History books tell you as much or more about the contemporary world in which they were written than
about the past events or people being covered. The fact that an increasing number of historians have
become interested in exploring the history of sexuality, gender, social classes, as well as ethnic
minorities tells us a great deal about the contemporary multicultural and liberal societies in which
we live. Fifty years ago, absolutely no historians would have covered these topics in any detail.
Post-modernists take this relativist, deconstructed view of history several steps further, by
arguing that history is little more than fiction and universities should scrap history departments,
incorporating them instead into literature programs. Although I do see their point, I would argue
that even if history is always inaccurate, the methodology used by a historian is vastly different
than that incorporated by authors of fiction. Historians strive for accuracy (even if they realize
that they will never fully accomplish this) by consulting an array of sources and then citing these
in their work. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well, I guess I may as well be the first to state the aphorism “History is written by the
victors.”
As a journalist, I am hyperaware that every story is only as good as your sources. This means that
when, say, covering a crime, you will get different accounts from the victim, perpetrator, law
enforcement-- even lies. Historians, too, are only as good as their sources.
And then there is the bias of the writer. An example is the trend to dig up the possible
homosexuality of historic figures (like Lincoln).
In the last 40 or so years, another trend has been toward “revisionist history,” rewriting the
account of events form a different perspective. My dad was a history freak, but went ballistic over
revisionism. He even refused to read “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,” which is written from the
losers’ point of view. My father was dead wrong. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is true. The Bush administration has caused many people to look more closely at the seamy
underside of history than ever before. American history in particular, I find, is riddled with
nationalistic bias. Many major events have essentially been left out of the history books. The
Kennedy assassination was still "officially" perpetrated by lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald even though
anyone with a clue can see this is false, as even major conservative leaders like De Gaulle and
Nixon acknowledged.
Most Americans are completely ignorant of the fact that their country was, to a large extent,
populated by criminals : Convicted felons who were sentenced to death in Europe then had their
sentence commuted to transportation to the colonies. The reason they are ignorant of it is that very
few American historians have dared to cover it. It makes them uncomfortable so they simply avert
their eyes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I have studied the modern history of Central America in school and learned much, then i spent some
time there, and lived with the people and learned a completely different account of the way things
went. I studied European history and found out many giant gaps of events from a nationalist
professor. The history of the US has some giant gaping holes after careful examination. Yeah, or
at least incomplete. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
History is the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and
even into the future. History is what happened and is happening, so it cannot be inaccurate in any
way, making your argument nonsensical.
If, however, you mean that historical events are often portrayed in an inaccurate way, then you have
a point. I still disagree with this point however. Historians strive to uncover truths and present
the past without bias, even if the church has often tried to cover up in the past.
No history book says that all of its contents are 100% accurate and true though. We just live in a
time where people believe whatever they hear. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
03 May 2008 22:56
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
