Why do you think it is so interesting to get people's versions of history as opposed to encyclopedia?

Answer 1

I think the biggest reason for that would be that history can be approached from several angles. While the outlay of facts regarding people, places and times are set, those details don't often tell you much other than what happened. The most essential component in any historian's research is usually the "why" component. And that can very often be a difficult point to establish. If your goal is simply to recall the occurance of events with accuracy, then an encyclopedia or something like it is your best source. If, however, you are trying to answer a question like why something happened or how a person impacted something, the human component is critical.

Take the American Civil War for example. Everyone can (generally) agree on what happened - which states were Confederate, what battles occurred where, etc. Hard Facts. The human component however is still something that people debate. Why did it happen? Who was right? What was Lincoln really thinking when he freed the slaves? Was it a good thing or a bad thing that the North won? How did that impact our country today?

Not only are the the different beliefs and sentiments of people are going to vary wildly at the time the events take place, but the interpretations of the eveidence that we have Today are going vary as well, and its very important to understand this component to formulate good picture of what really happened during that event in history.

Answer 2

An encyclopaedia just gives the bare facts - though you can't tell really if that's the truth - given the propensity of people for re-writing history (for example, the text books written by the Japanese which "whitewashes" Japan's relationship and behaviour in China during World War II).

Getting a person's own version of events that took place in history would help you understand more clearly WHY some things might have happened or WHY people would have behaved in certain ways. The encyclopaedia may mention the reasons why, but sometimes you can't really imagine it - even though you have the facts.

A first person account would give you an insight into the emotional background of events. How did people feel about what was happening, and how would those emotions push them to do things that normally they probably wouldn't dream of doing.

A personal account brings history alive...it helps you to see how a real person like yourself would react or how they would feel in the course of history-making events. It gives you a taste of what living in that time might be like - allows you to compare what was acceptable |(or unacceptable) in those days, with practices nowadays.

Of course, that's not to say that that would be the truth. The person's version of events would be coloured by his/her idea of what the truth is.

Answer 3

YES! I was able to talk to a man that was at my university last night who graduated high school in 1949, went to my university while it was still being held in a high school.
He also fought in the Korean war and several others, worked for the city for years, and retired in 1985. It's amazing to hear him talk about everything he saw. From a first person perspective, its amazing stuff!
Before that, I lived down an old country, dirt road. There was an old man who remembered when land there was a penny an acre. He also remembered German POW's cleaning out an area getting ready for a highway to be put in. . .

Answer 4

Many people will read a report of an event in the newspapers, or in books, or hear it on TV news, but if some not-to-bright neighbor gives a different version, he's the one who will be believed.

Answer 5

Because there are so many people to give so many varieties of views to history. People tend to bend the facts and add interesting details which we love to hear. These details though difficult to prove are often preferred over dull facts.

That's what I think.

Answer 6

Are you refering to books by Anatoly Fomenko ?