Is history a lie told by liers before us? How do we know for sure?

Answer 1

Interesting question.
My first response was to say that our history is proved to be true by the very nature that people grew up with it.

For example, I suspect you would believe your grandfather when he speaks of the war. No doubt your Grandfather believed the stories his Grandfather told, and so on...

But, not everything was recorded like it is now, and certain things could be changed... I mean, we ARE human after-all, and humans do tend to fib now and again don't they...

I am sure there are people who have made up stories, and these stories have broadened, got out of control and somehow managed to intertweave into our history. You've probably heard of the phrase "Chinese whispers" where a story gets exaggerated with each telling.

So for sure, maybe not all our history is the truth but I suspect the majority is.
I also suspect that as time goes by, because of our communication and recording methods now, more and more of our present (our future history) will be recorded correctly.

Having said that, history is determined by human's ability to record it, and humans do love to exaggerate...

Answer 2

History isn't lies, history is perspective. A person can go about it with the purest intentions and still not be fully accurate. History in some cases is written by the victors in some cases it is written by the curious. History requires one to draw from many sources thus increasing the accuracy of what is said. It is practiced this way and should be read the same way. One historian will inevitably be wrong on some things but a collective of Historians and your own conclusions do render a truth.

Archeology is the best tool for this. It has done well at it. We find artifacts and ancient sites and when Lucky find things like the Rosetta stone which once deciphered made us able to compare the views of these cultures about themselves and each other.

Answer 3

In war, the history is written by the victors. It is not a lie per se; it is a view point. From the viewpoint of most writers the War Between the States is about the virtuous North defeating the slave owning South and freeing the ******. This is an emotion rousing slogan to wave. In reality, the war (as most wars) was about economic domination. The agricultural south needed a great deal of manual labor to raise the crops. The industrial North had a greater need for banking and trade. It would have been very difficult for the North to prosper if national government were dominated by an agrarian economy. This diachotomy is clearly shown in the struggle over the creation of the US Bank between Democrat Andrew Jackson and the Whigs.

Almost nothing can be known "for sure", but wide reading will give you a broader understanding.

Answer 4

I follow Mr Curious and Spider on this question. Look at all accounts of an event and examine it from all angles. Sift out the rather fictitious stuff and add a pinch of salt. Whether history is correct is rather a matter of perspective. It depends if you are looking for the bare facts or the whole picture. Some historical facts you just have to accept to be correct as they are too long ago to question. History changes every day though along with scientific evidence. Accept it as correct until proven incorrect either by yourself or others.

Answer 5

A little jaded, huh?

History is 50% guessing and 50% prejudice, (according to famous historian Will Durrant) so it is up to us to read as many contemporary accounts of an event to determine what really happened. We read expert analysis from ALL sides, we weight the evidence, the science employed, the sources sited, and then we make an educated guess. Remember that history is NOT mathematics--there is never an answer that is 100% correct.

For instance: While there are dozens and dozens of theories surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, the weight of the hard, forensic evidence, points to one and only one person--Lee Harvey Oswald. Numerous individuals argue otherwise, but when their theories are analyzed seriously the contain more holes and more unanswered questions than the explanation involving Oswald. Of course there are some unaswered questions but we are left to conclude by our own study what really happened.

That is what history is.

Answer 6

The tangible facts of history are generally well known. Who won this battle, who won this election, what was the state of the economy at this time.

The interpretations of these events are ever-changing, however. True historians look at numerous primary sources and the secondary sources of their peers, contemporary and past, before making judgements.

So history is not a 'lie', especially not the particular facts. Emphasis on some aspects over others does occur, but taken as a whole, the various works on a topic present historical truth.

Answer 7

Because of History is a sub-branch of science, it can not be "just" a lie. It is a necessity to an event to be happened 50 years before it considered in history. In oder to research it scientificly, and with a reason-result relationship, the event must lost (or started to lose) its influences to any parties.
Moreover, the documents and sources are investigated after they collected, classified and prooved by impartial other sources or archives. Also the approval or acceptance needed by Historicians...
And many many science branches work together with history, such as chemistry, archeology, geography vs vs..
Nevertheless victor states, or who has power try to write history according to them, but it has nothing to do with the Science of History. We call it Story...

Answer 8

To the victor go the spoils....unfortunately, in the past, history was recorded for posterity and never mind the truth...but with other emerging sciences such as archaeology, geology and so forth, historians are able to put some of the recorded events to the test to see if "accepted known facts established thru scientific study" suppourts the written/oral account. Even the bible is not immune to this type of in-depth exploration.

To find the truth, you must examine it from every angle and make comparisons with what we already know to be proven fact.....

Answer 9

Historians take documents from the time they are studying and interpretate them, and there are different interpretations in regards to certain historical events, such as the French revolution for example. Since there is a community of historians, they supervise each other like in any other scientific community in order to guarantee that what is begin said is as approximate to the truth as possible. What you can do is read different books no on the same historical event and compare what each author says.

Answer 10

The winners of conflicts always write the history books. If not downright lies, lets just say that the "history" is slanted towards making them look the best.