Has anyone ever wondered how much of what we learned in history is wrong?

Question

Think about it, written history depends on who was in power at the time doesn't it. What do you think?

I am so glad that I'm not the only one that looks at different sources to help me find the truth or as close as I can come.

Answer 1

"He who won the war, records the victory of the battle."

No doubt.

Answer 2

History is told through the eyes of the victors, so of course there is some fallacies involved in our understanding of history. An excellent resource is "The Lies My Teacher Told Me." This book discusses how American History books are extremely biased and what really happened.

As with the study of politics, you can't rely on one source for your information. In order to be a well rounded person, we all need to learn to look at others perspectives.

Of course Lynne Cheney would have you believe that studying any other interpretation of American History other than the dead white guy version is unAmerican. I say that being ignorant is unAmerican. Learn all that you can and you will be better off in the end.

Answer 3

Right. Like we are taught that the Civil War was about slavery, when slavery wasn't even an issue until 1863. It was all about economics. Even worse is the creative license Hollywood is given which teaches history incorrectly. How many people think Pocahontas and John Smith were lovers? She was only about six years old when she saved his life. She married another Englishman, became a diplomat and sailed to England at the Queen's request. She contracted a fatal disease while there and died six days out to sea on her return trip. Bet you didn't know that. And then there is Braveheart. Wow! Where to begin on all the fallacies in that movie...

Answer 4

Certainly history is shaded by the victors writing it, but the broad picture is probably quite accurate, considering that it eventually comes down to us from many sources. Being aware of the shading factor is probably enough to help with a really close approximation of the truth. Single-source history, however, is highly suspect. A lot of stuff from the ancient world comes to us from only one commentator.

Answer 5

Ignorance is bred early in the young - - - example whenever St Patrick's Day rolls around American Teachers tout Andrew Jackson as an example of 'Scotch Irish' heritage - - - however he was PROTESANT and if you wished him 'Happy Saint Patrick's Day' he would crack you in the nuts. That bit about the Victors writing History is a bit over used - - - less tangible factors fall into play - - - for example in 1876 Rutherford Hayes was 'given' the Presidency after a disputed election. no one challenges Hayes being listed as 'elected' President in 1876 much as Americans accept that Geo W was 'elected' in 2000. Just as it was easier not going to war to put Samuel Tilden in Office so it was deemed to not go to war to put Al Gore in Office. The fact that now America is embroilled in war is merely a delicious irony.

A lot of times people accept an argument or a statement of fact because it is easier to go with the flow. When Christians were burning people at the stake for heretical beliefs it was easier to believe that historically GOD was on the side of the Catholic Church - - - did not the Catholic Church preserve law & order when the Pagan Roman Empire crumble. And for a lot of people the past is past why argue to correct mistakes. When one watches a movie such as 'Braveheart' isn't it easier to acept the filmaker's viewpoint, why quibble if facts were distorted? Could go on for hours but it is late. Peace.

Answer 6

All of it. History is the interpretation of events by an observer i.e it is post-facto records and over time these are corrupted and various versions can exist of the same event and each is true and false at the same time. You must take care to gauge only as much wisdom as exists and learn exactly what you need to know and move on with your eye firmly on the future. .

Answer 7

i have to agree with that. what i learned in private school differed substantially from what i learned at university and as a history and poly sci grad, the various texts and talks from a broad spectrum of authors, historians, and well-versed parties made me realize that there were aspects to history that i could never learn or analyze anywhere else.

those in power may influence the analysis of history and as these politicians come and go, we're bombarded with what is often referred to as revisionist history. the only thing i can say about it is, i was most helped by reading everything, listening to as many people as possible, thinking about it thoroughly, and attempting to draw an accurate and balanced conclusion.

what the hell am i talking about?
did this help?

Answer 8

For a new and truthful slant on US history, read Howard Zinn's book, "A People's History of the United States", ISBN No. 0-06-052837-0. Most else you read will be highly distorted and unreliable.

Answer 9

I think the further we get away from an historical event, the more truth we learn about it, without the spin of whomever writes the books.

However, it takes investigation and attention to the events. I'm grateful to those who feel that a truthful education is an important matter, and who do something about it.

Answer 10

My point of view is that people learns history not about the things not to do again, but how to do those things better to win any wars in future. We, people are worst beasts on Earth. Humans kills also for joy, animals kills only by instinct - for feeding or defense (mostly from humans) themselves. Very dissapointing facts, even it is XXI century and we are keeping glorifying the Civilisation.

Answer 11

True . Not a lot could be recorded wrong though ; otherwise every-thing would be in doubt. Scrutinise some historical events , think , analyse, and there is reason to conclude that in some instances history was recorded wrong.