2007-07-24 12:17:19 · 4 answers · asked by worldpeace 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
re: to saracatheryne's answer
I agree that it is more a social science.
But I disagree that it is "not subjective". I would actually say that history is VERY subjective. The events on white history is based may not be subjective in and of themselves, but the act of WRITING about those events (i.e. "doing history") IS. As you said, history really depends on who writes it. There are so many different versions that can be told of the same facts. Even though history is reputably based on hard facts, the truth is that history is rarely so black and white, and in order to discern those "facts" we have to rely on sources that are biased.
(I majored in history)
2007-07-24 13:51:25 · update #1
Social Sciences, I always thought of it as a social science. No wonder it took me awhile to find it on here.
2007-07-24 12:50:46 · answer #1 · answered by Dawn 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
As a History / Political Science double major, I would have to say that History definitely belongs in the social sciences because the discipline closest to it is arguably Political Science, which is definitely a social science.
2007-07-24 15:07:44 · answer #2 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Social sciences definitely. There really is nothing subjective about history; I know certain world events are seen differently by some cultures than others, but really we're talking about factual events as opposed to arts/culture. I'm just glad it's here.
2007-07-24 12:46:52 · answer #3 · answered by saracatheryn 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hmm... I'd say "Social Studies," but since that's not a category on here, I'll say "Social Sciences."
2007-07-24 18:29:31 · answer #4 · answered by Karen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋