History changes on a day to day basis.
2007-09-26 08:45:42 · 8 answers · asked by Pharaoh Phreedom Build Phuture 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I don't see how changing on a day-to-day basis makes a subject "corrupt." And I'm not even sure that I agree with you that history DOES change on a day-to-day basis (except insofar as every day that passes adds a new day to history.)
A lot of science changes on a day-to-day basis, usually for the same reason that some changes happen in the study of history, namely that new data is discovered.
Actually, it's a good thing, I'd say, that subjects do change, rather than remaining static. It shows that our scope of information/knowledge is increasing.
2007-09-26 08:55:20 · answer #1 · answered by johnslat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on which definition of corrupt you are using. If is to alter from the original/ correct version then yes, absolutely. Most History instructors go with what is the most easily understood and accepted. So, they teach what they feel is right may it be the true nature of what happened or what web has been weaved for everyone to believe. Students today are highly lacking in the history of their own state and country, much less any other part of the world.
2007-09-26 22:40:35 · answer #2 · answered by Ashley 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"He who wins the war writes the history books" says a saying.
Some things we know today are lies and others will be lies tomorrow. People could say that history is only a collection of facts or fictions. That's not completely true. To know history implies the use of intelligence because events are consequences of other events, so it implies the use of logic. Of course, it is needed to use intuition too.
As someone said above "history is many sided and has to be looked at dispassionately from many angles". So the point is that history is a science that make us think by ourselves.
2007-09-27 01:17:52 · answer #3 · answered by marcopolo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if I'd call it "corrupt", but it certainly is "subjective".
"HISTORY" per se deals with events 20 years or further in the past... Teaching the "history" of the 1990's is incorrect... you're merely teaching the "time-line" or delivering news-articles.
I DO agree with the first respondent that certain "legends" are taught as "history"... but I am also annoyed with "revisionist-history" that is scrubbed for political-correctness.
2007-09-26 16:00:26 · answer #4 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no the schools books are gibberish but not the millions of other books that have been written.just remember that history is many sided and has to be looked at dispassionately from many angles. just read as many books about the subject from different perspectives and you will get a clearer idea of what actually happened.
2007-09-26 15:51:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. For example, young children are taught every year about how great Christopher Columbus was and how he discovered America. In reality, he was a no-good lying scumbag who stole from the native people, then kiddnapped them to be slaves. Read the book Lies My History Teacher Told Me.
2007-09-26 15:51:19 · answer #6 · answered by Nessarose 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
YES! I am old enough to have actually SEEN events that happened, and which are now being taught in a wholly different way, as if those who saw it must have been hallucinating or something...
2007-09-26 17:21:59 · answer #7 · answered by correrafan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't believe that. because to corrupt it, you would first have to teach it, and I have no objective evidence that it is even being taught, corrupt or otherwise.
2007-09-26 18:35:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋