Is history that accurate as we think?

Answer 1

Yes and no, matey.
History is as accurate as its authors choose to make it, or can make it (if Hegel is correct). But sometimes, the authors of the histories have an agenda. It is possible to deduce that agenda, and work around the biases, but this means relying on source materials and a variety of "histories" from the same period.
As a for-instance, take the history of the U.S. Civil War (or War Between the States or War of Northern Agression ... take your pick). Currently, the vogue is to teach that the war was all about slavery, glossing over the facts (check the date on the adoption of the Emancipation Proclamation and the date the war started, and you will begin to see the truth). In fact, it was about a whole raft of issues mainly circulating around the rights (or lack thereof) of states to self-determination and the power of the federal government. Sure, the war ultimately abolished slavery in the United States, but that was only one of its intended outcomes, and a goal not clearly defined when the war started.
If you look at current events - the U.S. (through our presidente, Dubya Bush) started out declaring "War on Terror" and the goal of finding Osama Bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization that masterminded the attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. When that proved to be too difficult, the goal morphed into an attack on Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who had humiliated Bush's father by following his orders (see, Daddy Bush had given Saddam permission to invade Kuwait, then reneiged when international opinion proved to be universally negative).
The histories that come out of this period - what we are doing, and why we are doing it, and how it all comes out in the end - will certainly be interesting, and probably will run the gamut from fairly accurate to complete Bushit.
Thanks for a great question! Made me think!

Answer 2

History requires interpretation. To interpret things from long ago with modern eyes results in distortion. There are always multiple ways in which facts came be interpreted. History can only ever be an approximation - sometimes it is a distortion for political or social reasons. Whether history is as accurate as we think depends on how accurate we think it is.

Answer 3

No it isn't at all. There are always multiple versions of every event in history. What if all that survived from our current times were the writings of Ann Coulter or the films of Michael Moore. Even those that think the same way that each of these two extreme individuals think have to admit that they spin stories to prove their own points. What if all that survived of George Bush's presidency was his "Bushisms" - the people reviewing it would believe that he was a fool. While he still may be foolish sometimes there is a great deal more to his presidency than his occasional poor choice of words.

Taking the above into consideration, apply these ideas to any historical event. Famous accounts could simply be one sided descriptions of events like a Michael Moore film. Historians are pretty good at looking at all available sources and archaeological evidence when talking about events. Basically, in the words of my favorite history teacher, "don't believe everything you read, don't believe everything you hear."

Answer 4

As in any civilized society, everybody do need some past as guide for the present and dreams for future. As our past is a kind of base for further progress, our ancestors have been keeping the trail of those stories which were entwined with the victories only.....and thats how history comes into existence. And sincer there are thousands sectors virtually everywhere on our planet, each sector bore its own culture and history. So as far as the "accurate history" is concerned, I am sure every race, every religion does have its own line and version of history. For example : "A" nation was slave to "B" nation for several years. There were revolutionaries struggling for the independence and one of them kills a high ranking lord of the B nation and got hanged by the ruling. Naturally he was convict in the history books of "B"....but when the "A" acquired the independence after some time...then that particular revolutionary was hailed in the nation as Hero according to new definition of the history of A. So the accuracy is relatively not a proper term for History. Because it is created by popular demand, sometiems out of the scantiest material.

Answer 5

It just depends. It is accurate until more information is found. It then changes and becomes more accurate. We will never know the full truths about parts of history, so it should be assumed that is accurate, only assumed.

Answer 6

It can't possibly be... history always reflects the point of view of the person who writes it. Even with the newer documents that have been preserved, there is no guarantee that they accurately reflect reality. But they do reflect reality as it was seen by the person who wrote the documents. Even if that person did not intentionally interfere with the facts (and there are many 'historians' who distort reality on purpose), chances are that he/she did change them in some way or another. For instance, something didn't seem important enough to him/her, so he just left it out. But maybe that was an important piece of information that could have completely changed our understanding of that historical event.

Answer 7

If i hear the old chestnut that 'History was written by the winners' again I think I'll scream. The modern historical study of antiquity is as accurate as it possibly can be. Modern historians use many tools to unearth the secrets of primary source evidence and fiercely question each others' theories. The historical events and their causation that we know of today are as accurate as the sources available and the skill of the academics who interpret them. Historians will err on the side of caution and rather than prove facts, they justify probability.

Answer 8

I feel history is the accounts of the writer or writers and losses something a long the way.

Like most people didn't learn in school that Lincoln may have freed the slaves and owned a bunch
or that Ben Franklin was a womanizer . But these points have been determined by historians.

Penny Babson
http://www.impressionsbypenny.com

Answer 9

Not really, To this day we, are still finding stuff about the past that we never knew. A single event in the past can have many versions of what really happened. Also some historians of the past sometimes would not write events that they are ashamed of and they find it demeaning to their country. In war usually the winner is the one telling the story. The truth is that usually people wrote history as they think( or saw) fit.

Answer 10

Argh, UncleGeorge said this before me. Anyway, I am going to say it, shortly: yes, history is accurate, but the books of history aren't.