Do you ever wonder if historians get it right?

Question

I do an incredible amount of research because of my job...

Even from things I have learned, I still feel I know only a small portion of the real purpose of things or what is really going on behind the scenes. A lot of times, I don't see the truth until years later... yes, Washington politics is that complex.

Here is an example, some historians are writing that Reagan was a great president. Now, I was a Republican in the 80s but since much research have come to realize he did nothing. He was even declared lame duck in 1984.

Yes he signed the treaty with Gorbachev but that was just formality having been in the works for years. Now, some historians are writing that Reagan, like he single-handily, brought down communism... ludicrous to someone who does any research at all.

This is not a Reagan question... was just using that as an example.

Question is about how much can we trust history as written.

Answer 1

History has a strange way of changing with time. You will see how history changes if you do some research in old history books that were once used in classrooms.
Soon after the Mexican war, classroom history books blame the entire war on Mexican aggression. By the 1890s, the history books had an entirely different slant. By then, it was described as a race war that the U.S. had to engage in because of Manifest Destiny. That slant was very similar to Hitler's concept in Germany. By the 1960s, a very new story was told. There it was described as being started by the USA simply to grab land.
Thru a 100 and some odd years, the history of the Mexican war did a 180 degree shift from Mexico being the aggressor to the USA being the aggressor.
To answer your question, you really can't believe history as it is written anymore than you can believe Fox news. It's all slanted to suit someone's interest.

Answer 2

As much as we can because we have to. America by itself has over 200 years of history, the world has thousands of years of history and we only have so long to study it. We also have our lives to live in the process so our ability to actually know what happened get diminished a lot.

One thing we have to remember is we focus on the negative and remember the good. Such as I remember Clinton was hotly criticized during his presidency and only recently been looked at in a good light. Bush now will be vilified and people will sing his praises in 2010, for some reason that is how history works.

For a person to truly know history they have to look at several sources on the same thing. They have to do a lot of reading on their own. This is a lot of time for someone to spend. But over all looking back over history it is reported somewhat accurate. How Reagan got over on the soviets was the stealth bomber. He declassified it and the soviets went nuts, they switched their entire military to deal with steal bombers then Reagan said he was going back to the B-52s. That switch threw the entire military machine into such turmoil that it threw the economy off and it subsequently collapsed. The soviets might not have signed that treaty if they didn't think they had to. (I was in the military at the time and remember some big brass laughing over it at the time)

So there is some truth to most the history we read even if it isn't 100% true.

Answer 3

With regard to historians, I would say to be careful those historians who confuse politics with detached and thoughtful analysis of history . Howard Zinn is perhaps the worst of the worst because he is a Communist sympathizer posing as a historian. His primary intent is bashing the United States; nothing more, nothing less. The fact that people read his diatribes and then believe that they are reading "history" is depressing.
_________

I'm not sure that anyone claimed that Reagan "single handedly" brought down Communism. A big reason why Communism was doomed to fail was because of its own (massive) failings.

However, Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II spoke out bravely against it at a time when it was very unpopular to do so. The media criticized Reagan (surprise) for it. That alone warrants respect.

Answer 4

I know in war the victors write the history. The biggest thing I remember about Reagan ( I am pushing 48) is when he went in on TV when the dollar plunged on the world market and he told everyone they didnt need to worry about it unless you plan on taking a overseas vacation.....mmmmmmmm Wow, and I thought it affected the entire trade process, but what do I know being a dumb moderate, But you did have some people say yep, that only matters if your going to take a trip overseas and gosh darn, is he a great president or what !! He was a very likable man, reminded me of my Grandfather, but my Grandfather would allways say the Republicans will screw you any chance they could, BUT he would also say dont trust the Democrats, They will screw you to. So I was brought up as much in the middle as you can be and I do think they have extremes of both parties that we all good do with out. Both sides of my family believed in the balance of power theory, the entire checks and balances bit, which I think has all been taken away by the far right. we need to get back in the middle, normally in the middle, the far right will cancell out the far left and vica-versa. Look whats happened after all far right control, allot of bad and allot of hate and to many media laws changed, used to be 40 companies owned most, now 5 do, we need both the LEFT and the RIGHT for most folks, just not FAR left or FAR FAR FAR RIGHT that they have in now.

Answer 5

No, I don't think we can trust it COMPLETLEY because some stories of the past are still going on today. For example, the assassination of JFK porbably did not take place as the history books say. Their are probably many facts which will nevr be revealed to the public about the murder. I and many others belive that the killing was carried out by more than just one insane man, perhaps the mafia or someone in the government. As time goes forward, we learn even more about stories from the past, so really I don't history is ever completely accurate becasue like in science, new discoveries change the way we look at it.

Answer 6

It's not true historians who screw it up. I think most of them do the best they can with the information that is available to them, and with time and distance more truths often become clear. We continue to see historians publishing new versions of events that happened thousands of years ago that fly in the face of what was previously believed to be true, as the layers of time and strata are peeled away.

It's the incredibly convenient and short memory we have as a nation, and the deliberate obfuscation of the machinations of our government, that makes it seem as though recent history is being revised. You're living through the time you're trying to study, not the best way to get an objective perspective. People in the 22nd century who are studying the 20th and 21st centuries will likely have a much clearer picture than it's possible to get now (if the human race survives that long).

Some people do write skewed histories because of their political views, but that eliminates them from the 'true historian' club, in my opinion. Well-informed individuals wanting to know the truth about events do not limit their research to one side of a story, so such revisionist histories tend not to hold up to scrutiny. As with anything, the more information one can gather, the better.

The practice of propagating erroneous information to cloud the realities of what has occured is as old as human history. But, in the Information Age, I doubt they will succeed for the long term. I imagine, in time, Reagan will be referred to as a charismatic and well-liked President, but as with all those who went before him, the decisions and events of his Presidency will be judged on their merits.

Answer 7

Doing a little historical research myself I have seen something I'm sure we've all heard, and is somewhat cliche nowdays, but that the winners write the history. Think about it. The colonies won the Revolutionary war. Now we hold our forefathers as patriots. If Englad had won, they would be traitors, hung, and forgotten. If the south had won the civil war, Davis and the rest would be seen as patriots, similar to the way those who led the US to indepenence are seen. Instead, they are seen as racist slaveowners. If Hitler had won WWII, who knows, maybe we'd all be thinking a little racist nowdays and glad he "freed" us from democracy (I doubt this but you know, I'm just trying to illistrate a point). Anyway, as far as bringing down the USSR goes, thats is a terribly complex situation that goes deep into economic struggles and struggles among the many satelite states they were trying to hang onto. Gorbachev was a different kind of leader for them, and many think he wasn't sure how to handle the situation placed before him. One can't attribute the collapse to Regan, especially not saying he single handedly did it. It came more from the instability within the USSR

Answer 8

I believe you are correct. History much like the Bible is up for interpretation.

Reagan was called the great communicator, that's probably the origin of his fame, somewhat.

In your own analysis though, how much can we trust history, really doesn't matter! It's the reader that will justify the facts and bend them the way they want. Just as Republicans define Democrats and the other way around.

It's a nutty place huh?

Answer 9

Historians can't help but to reflect their own beliefs in their work, so I definitely wonder if they get it right. We all see things in our own light - with our own bias, prejudice, beliefs, influencing how we view things. You and I could watch the exact same thing and have two entirely different takes on the issue.

Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living? I work at a university and have lots of friends who teach history, so I'm just curious.

Answer 10

Truth is there are thousands of ways to interpret or repeat an incident. Best is first hand of course time and space doesn't allow this all the time. All we can do is take as much information dissect and compare to come to conclusions about the correctness of history as it is being told today.