2007-10-21 17:02:59 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Yes
To give a more accurate picture of world events and views during the period studied.
2007-10-21 17:06:57 · answer #1 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it's immediately relevant to the events being discussed then yes of course.
If for instance it was discovered that the only reason an army was able to cross a river, and thus win a battle, was because boats were provided by another group of people, then that should be included.
If it's a minor detail, such as the name of a driver who kills a famous politician by running them over, then it's not really relevant for most history books. What is important is that the politician was killed and possibly the effect that had on whether certain laws were passed or not because of it.
So basically it depends on why those things have been omitted and whether those things are actually important enough to be included.
2007-10-21 18:30:30 · answer #2 · answered by cernunnicnos 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes..
The truth, may it be unbelievable or boring, should be included in history books. The real issue is developing an understanding of why the truth was changed. As Robert Wuhl catch phrase states: When the Legend Becomes Fact, Print the Legend. There are reasons why stories and myths are created and changed. By understanding the reasons for these changes, one can begin to understand the 'truth' that lies within history. Textbooks should attempt to gain perspective from all sides of an issue. Unfortunately, there are still many debates about what is 'truth' to print only one interpretation. With a deeper understanding of our past, our society might be able to understand its present.
2007-10-21 18:18:24 · answer #3 · answered by LOR 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's interesting you didn't say anything about fixing the bias.
The issue about including all of the parts of history is that there have been how many thousands of years of history and you plan on spending how long to learn it? I think there is too much history to be economically, or physically feasible.
I do think that studied history should be as complete, accurate, and unbiased as possible, however.
2007-10-21 17:19:42 · answer #4 · answered by Chris A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think about it.....History is written by the victors not the losers.
So, if we were to re-write history and include the parts that were omitted.....just what we include. And who would decide.
2007-10-21 17:23:07 · answer #5 · answered by Damned Fan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
History is supposed to be fact, not fiction. We need to completely start over again especially where American history is involved. There is so many untruths in our history books that they are more like fairy tales.
2007-10-21 17:08:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
where ever possible, yes. However it is simply impractical to redo all of history for minor omissions. Any information that would change history, or at least change some aspect noticably should be added.
2007-10-21 17:36:18 · answer #7 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes-so people understand all of history and other events and perspectives.
2007-10-21 17:16:21 · answer #8 · answered by itry 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋