2006-10-28 16:55:28 · 6 answers · asked by GG Alan Alda 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
No, but it seems to be a common theme in some political parties.
2006-10-29 05:59:04 · answer #1 · answered by Bleaarg 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well whats the defanition of History? In the dictonary it says the study of the past. My defanition would be that. If your defanition of Histoy is all documents created in the past then you are calling even the fake ones historical.
But in any event the way scientists have found to make sure that a document is acutaly ture is. 1. It has to be spoken of or quoted from in at least 5 other documents. 2. It has to be perfectaly correct with at least 5 other documents known to be true. 3. There must be some archeological evidence (if available)
So, no if a document is not true then it is not history.
2006-10-29 00:04:02 · answer #2 · answered by Big Dave 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually no... but some recent evidence has proven that what we once believed was true, is actually not what it seems to be.
When I was in school I learnt that one of the sultan's in the Malacca sultanate married a pincess from China, but recently, they discovered that there was no princess from China who wasgiven for marriage to any Malacca sultan.
My conclusion is, history is mostly what people believed to have happened (unless of course there's evidence to prove it, then it's real)
2006-10-29 00:16:17 · answer #3 · answered by anusha b 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. It has been done before and a lot of people are rewritting history for "political correctness" now, but that does not make it history, that makes it fiction.
(I did not make fun of your avatar, but I wanted to.)
2006-10-29 00:15:55 · answer #4 · answered by Walking Man 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yea thats a tough one, i say no but you know alot of the stuff in any kind of history book are theories so how confusing is that!
2006-10-28 23:57:12 · answer #5 · answered by sunshine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
2006-10-28 23:57:51 · answer #6 · answered by roydono 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋