In general...If history is based on a historian telling his/her version of what they think happened.....?

Question

without concrete facts...Why would this be considered History? Why would a therory ever be allowed to deluge students/people into thinking or reading that it's an actual historical truth when it not?

Answer 1

Professional historians are trained to use a variety of sources in their reconstructions of an event in an ethical way and to evaluate those sources on their own merits. They are also subject to peer review, or should be, in order to allow others to evaluate their arguments and the facts they use to support those arguments. Ethical professional historians do not just make things up or tell a version of what they think happened without facts. They make clear what sources they are drawing upon and provide their reconstruction based on those sources and, in most cases, make it clear when they are drifting into areas of reconstruction that are less supported by the evidence.
This isn't to say that there aren't historians without conscious agendas or that historians aren't influenced even by unconscious bias or other issues that may color their reconstructions.

If you're really interested in this topic, I suggest you have a look at
"Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge " by George Iggers
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0819567663/ref=pd_ys_iyr22/104-2558949-9533554?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

I'd add that the whole point of education is less about filling minds with facts or theories and more about providing a foundation for people to be able to evaluate "facts" and "theories" that are presented to them. Historians are not out to delude people (at least, not most of them, though there are notable exceptions) and if education is doing what it's supposed to do, they shouldn't be successful in deluding them.

Answer 2

History is usually written by the victors and must always be treated with scepticism until you have made your own enquiries and used your own judgement.
I will give you one example.
At school I was taught that Richard I of England (Richard the Lionheart) was the archetypal chivalrous example of English mediaeval nobility.
In later life I discover that he was born in France, was raised in France, lived most of his life in France and died in France having rarely been in England.
In fact he was a Frenchman and it is doubtful if he could even speak english.

Answer 3

because historians try to give evidence and show facts. when this doesnt happen, you can compare different points of view by different historians, remembering that winners can easily destroy evidence against themselves. students should learn to use history books in order to find out their own point of view, they are not a religious dogma, but still history can teach a lot.

Answer 4

History is based on the writings of "historians" approved by the powers that be. Try getting published if what you say is critical of what is correct to the establishment. Internet publishing doesnt count.
And having published who is going to distribute it?
Who is going to stock it - remember publishing is a business and if official sources say your book is toilet paper few will buy.
So history is actually commissioned by the ruling class. Facts are adjusted to make them the moral victor over the depraved enemy.
Thats why it is called his story.

Answer 5

most are called myths tell they can be proven look at troy for example it was thought of as a myth till here in the last 100 years it was found, pontius Pilate is another one every body thought he never even lived till but now they know diff rent since they have found a Lil sign that says that he lived this way

Answer 6

You are describing second hand accounting of history.
There are also firsthand accounts written by people who
lived during the events.

Answer 7

Hitler one said
"History is the propoganda of winning side"

And Nepoleon once said

"What is history but a feeble agreed upon"

you have to use a lot of common sense and circumstancial evidence and facts and your anaylatical approach to figure out..

Answer 8

because history is written by the winners it's a bunch of bullshit that's been handed down for generations and generations that enough people believe to constitute fact.