How accurate do you think history really is? Scale of 1 to 10 (1 being made up - 10 being equal with the event)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=History
2006-09-15 04:46:06 · 12 answers · asked by glamar_mw 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
This is a question of historical truth - can we know the whole story? Well, probably no, but I'd argue that historians try their best to give some portrayal of what they interpret truth to be. In the past 50 years or so professional historians have attempted to move away from telling the story of the victor only. Recent history is no more accurate than distant history because even though we may have lived through the event we have another problem - bias. Even if we are living through an event do we have ALL the facts? Doubtful. So on a scale of 1-10 I'm going to give history a generous 7.
2006-09-16 15:42:39 · answer #1 · answered by Monica 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not sure - I wasn't there!
But maybe the facts are right, they are just distorted and manipulated and given from a biased perspective.
I am reading a book on Indigenous Australian history and it is excellent, and offers a contradictory viewpoint of a lot of the things I learned at school.
Who is right? I'd say somewhere in the middle we'd find the truth.
But even events captured on film are open to interpretation so potentially there will be different versions of events.
I said a while ago I believe history is the interpretation of facts and I guess in summary that's what I believe!!!!
2006-09-15 12:47:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
6
2006-09-15 11:53:33 · answer #3 · answered by dreamingtyger 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Obviously there is no definitive answer here. I think that the older history is, the more innacurte it becomes. Of course with the coming of technology into our world, it gets harder to distort facts, either by omisision, bad reporting or opinion. But technology is relatively new, it used to be just stories and empirical evidence. People think the Bible is history, right? And the dinosaurs, we think we know how the extinctified, but do we? And of course there is always interpretation....
2006-09-15 11:51:29 · answer #4 · answered by Alobar 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only answer to this question that I can really give is that the winners write the history books. Example: How WW2 is taught and learned in Europe will be different than it is in America.
I'm sure you get the idea of where I'm going with this.
2006-09-17 00:19:58 · answer #5 · answered by Dakkuri00 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'll say 6.5-7.
There are two kinds of history: "pristine", what actually happened, and "recorded", the subjective observations of those recording it.
We get it right more often now than we ever have before, which is not to say that we get it right anywhere close to all the time.
2006-09-15 11:56:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like to read as many accounts of something I'm really interested in, as i can. By different authors. Then compare the different stories and try to sort out the truth using logic etc.
2006-09-16 14:31:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends on the culture...some history is deliberately manipulated, and some of it is unwittingly manipulated because the "losers" never write the history books. All in all, I'd give history a 6.5 for accuracy.
2006-09-15 12:10:05 · answer #8 · answered by Joe 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1.
History is written by the victor.
What is written as history, is a true account of the winner's opinion.
2006-09-15 12:10:11 · answer #9 · answered by sanwhatnow 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The more recent the history, the more accurate it is...because we have more evidence.
2006-09-15 11:48:57 · answer #10 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋