Do history books tell the truth? They were written by people?

Answer 1

Truth is subjective, personal, and, especially in history textbooks, political.

Here are several examples:

1. In some books, Christopher Columbus, the discoverer of America, is a hero. In others, he's a villain. Not only did he discover America, he's responsible for the deaths of millions of Native Americans.

2. A history of World War II written by an American will likely emphasize the American involvement, such as D-Day and the atomic bomb; while such as history written by a Russian will emphasize that the war was won in the east, especially during the Battle of Stalingrad.

3. Older American history textbooks emphasize the contributions and exploits mainly of white male Americans -- Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc. More recent textbooks emphasize racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, including Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Jr., and so on.

4. Japanese textbooks try to ignore what the Japanese did to the Koreans and Chinese in the first half of the 20th ccentury.

5. In the post- 9/11 world, Islam-bashing is fashionable in the west, and America-bashing is fashionable in the Arabic world.

6. In the 19th century, western imperialism was looked upon favorably in the west; a hundred years later, it was viewed as evil, racist exploitation.

Many historians write from a particular point of view not shared by others. And virtually all textbooks are reviewed by panels to make sure students learn what the government wants them to learn. For example, you learn about the election process in democratic America. But you don't hear much about political corruption or the influence of money in these elections.

Similarly, you learn about the court system and the balance of power. But you don't learn that to get a good lawyer, you better have money. Poor people have little access to the courts.

So take your history with a large grain of salt. Also try to read history from different points of view.

Answer 2

History books tell the truth according to the biased opinion of the author and the nation they represent. An American history book will state "facts" according to the way Americans have come to perceive them as truth. History books written in other nations will offer "facts" as they rightfully believe them. These facts can be manipulated by government officials, or perhaps by the media, but mostly, are influenced by the way the people want to feel about their country. They want to hold a sense of pride and dignity. They want their history books to tell them that they were right in taking certain stands in certain situations, sometimes that is not always exactly true. Therefore, the answer is, history books offer slanted facts, it's only human nature.

Answer 3

Yes, for the most part history books tell the truth.Of course that depends upon where you live. If you live in a totalitarian regime, the history books are written by members of the ruling party, so history may be "skewed" a bit.

However, history books are written by people. (Who else would write them?). View may be "skewed" as well. Emphasis will be placed differently depending on who is doing the writing. For example, if one has a conservative viewpoint, history will be written with a conservative point of view.

The idea is to read history with an open mind and to ask questions. By asking you start to look for the answers....

Answer 4

History books, like newspapers and magazines, tell A truth, but it isn't necessarily THE truth.

THE truth is VERY hard to come by.

Whenever you read or see something ask yourself, "Who is the source?" Then temper what what they write and say with your own experience. Look for alternate versions of the story or report or chapter in the book. Typically it's said the winner gets to write history, so take that into considersation.

Finally, know that there is NO such thing as "objectivity." As an instructor of mind once told our class, "You cannot hold a photocopier up to life." Anywhere you place a camera, or the moment you begin to write a story you are making a decision from a specific point of view.

Answer 5

That is a really tough question. The fact is that some parts of history that we are taught and that we may go out and learn on our own is most likely false, but there isn't much we can do to prove that it's false or even know that what we learn is false. Historians have been able to go back and look through original records to change false information, but that is not always possible. Then you have to take into consideration the fact that if any government doesn't want information to be shown, it won't be. That doesn't just mean today's governments, that means governments from other eras too. Who's to say Napoleon did not falsify information? Information originally provided by biases individuals could also be inaccurate, either because they flat out lie or their pride would have been hurt to give the whole truth on whatever subject it may have been.

Answer 6

Our view of how historical events unfold changes ever so slightly with newly discovered evidence and sound theories. A historian tends to specialize in one or two periods of antiquity and they will have a considerable background knowledge in respect to their chosen field. They will also be aware of most of the previous academic writing by other historians who research similar avenues. They also have access to valuable primary source evidence which was created during the period in which they are interested and they have the mental tools with which to dissect it fairly. I've lost count of the number of times on here that I've seen the old chestnut, 'History was written by the winners' and is thus one sided, well maybe so, but a proper Historian is aware of this and can find other evidence to compensate or show up the story of the 'other side'.

So yes, a modern historian will usualy attempt to produce truthful theories.

In the case of the causes of the French Revolution, historians have read and dissected each others work on this subject, poured over thousands of primary sources and have come to some agreement of the probable causes for the revolution. They make informed and educated statements according to the evidence that they have. Nothing is certain but a lot is probable.
The same is relevent for any other decent theories abound

Answer 7

History is always changing new information is always coming out daily about some new find or new discovery to something that happen in our past. History is a written records of man's past. It's not a perfect record because a lot of it is no well kept. But it is the best records we have to preserving our way of life here on this planet. As I said history is always changing new facts are being discovered to things that have happen in our pass, all we can do is keep an open mind that what we learned in school in the way of history is just as valuable as the new facts that will emerge about our civilization in the years to come. Just remember to keep a open mind to the fact that the old information is just as important as the new information on this subject.

Answer 8

Ask yourself this:
Who wrote this?
Why did they write it?
Who did they right it for?
Did they have any agendas, beyond just education?

All history is subjective; if there is a truth out there, we are never going to have it, because we can't know all the factors, and we can't view them objectively.

However, I would take anything a school text book tells you with a grain of salt, because they are so over-simplified that they distort history.

I would take anything historical non-fiction says with a grain of salt, because it is trying to be popular, and will spoon feed the people what they want.

I would take anythign a scholar says with a grain of salt, because they have their own biases and will (conscious or not) focus on the facts that fit how they already see things.

Answer 9

As a historian, I have been taught to always take historical documentation with a grain of salt. I was once told by a Professor "You know the term the facts speak for themselves? Well in History, you never know." This is mainly do to the fact that history, for the most part, was written by the victor for the sake of their ego and legacy. For instance, we are taught that General Custer was a glorious general who saved the west from the Indians, when in actuality, he massacred millions of buffaloe to kill of their food supply and killed men, women and children with no ounce of remorse. Also, over the centuries, accounts have been retranslated and rewritten and often times, words are mistranslated that often rearrange an entire event. So you always have to question what you are reading.

Answer 10

History is written by the "winners" (of wars etc) and is usually slanted to the view of whomever wrote it. Ex., a history of the USA written by Native Americans might be very different from your text book,...and even textbooks can vary greatly.