jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (18 posts)

Is history accurate?

  1. bankscottage profile image95
    bankscottageposted 5 years ago

    Is history accurate?

    History is basically one recollection, 'his story'.  It is often presented by the "winner".  Is history an accurate account of what actually happened?

  2. handymanbill profile image81
    handymanbillposted 5 years ago

    it is basically correct I believe. But it is almost always tilted toward the winners side. I also think that it is more accurate now then it has ever been. With the speed of modern communications. The chance of the real true story is better.

  3. MickS profile image74
    MickSposted 5 years ago

    It is always accurate from the winners point of view.

  4. glmclendon profile image62
    glmclendonposted 5 years ago

    The winners and writers make the story complete

  5. tonymead60 profile image92
    tonymead60posted 5 years ago

    It is seldom the whole truth, it is usually told by the winners, or the survivors.
    Work on the principle that everyone tells lies and you won't be far wrong.

    1. swordsbane profile image60
      swordsbaneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You can start with Congress.

    2. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I understand what you are saying, but is it really accurate.I had to do a book review for an American History class in college. I stated that "all politicians are crooked." The prof. wrote, "can you prove this." I could not since it was not true.

  6. lburmaster profile image83
    lburmasterposted 5 years ago

    Hmmmm... Let's see... Which one of us was alive when those events in history happened?... Um. None of us. So we will never know. We can only assume, create educated guesses, and estimate.

    1. John Holden profile image62
      John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      On the contrary, loads of us were alive when history happened, it happened yesterday!

  7. Vegas Elias profile image29
    Vegas Eliasposted 5 years ago

    No. It is up to you to read history and also read between the lines.

  8. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    History is accurate--the recounting of the history is not always accurate. Thus, it is important that you seek out more than one source when studying history. I have a minor in history, which among other things, required me to write nine different term papers over a three year period. It was an eye-opening experience.  Some parts of history that you read can be taken at face value, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. However, figuring out when the Vietnam war started is a little more difficult. The amount of accuracy you find will depend on how hard you are willing to look for it.

    1. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There are to facets of history. The first is the event. That is pretty straight forward. The Union won the Civil War, the Allies Won WWII. The second is cause and affect. That is when the numerous revisions and updated theories, etc come into play.

  9. Angela Kane profile image77
    Angela Kaneposted 5 years ago

    I think over 70% of history is wrong, history is told by the last person standing and it is usually told from their point of view.

  10. Dennis AuBuchon profile image84
    Dennis AuBuchonposted 5 years ago

    Whether history is accurate depends on who is writing it.  In our school textbooks today history keeps changing as they revise books and what was being taught in the past is now different in many cases.  Some events have been changed to reflect political correctness while others have been removed for fear of making certain segments of the population angry.

    The current process of textbooks involves revising or updating events in our history.  This sometimes presents additional facts that may previously been unknown while other times the perspective changes in the approach taken to specific events.

  11. taw2012 profile image59
    taw2012posted 5 years ago

    History is basically believed to be correct. But in reality it includes imaginations of people too.

  12. MilesArmbruster profile image60
    MilesArmbrusterposted 5 years ago

    Many of the posts here talk about "winners" and "losers" and how the winners write the history. I understand that people are biased, it is one reason why I don't watch the news anymore. But imagine that we formed a team to write a history book about farming in Kansas in the 1870's. What bias would we have? Who is the winner? Why would any of us twist Kansas farming? How could it suit our own ends?
    Historians are taught about bias, and encouraged to be faithful to the facts. Just because people are biased in general doesn't mean that they can't treat a topic fairly in specific.

    1. bankscottage profile image95
      bankscottageposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This is true.  But, in the US, from our history we learn about the Patriots who fought the British for our independence.  If you go to the Maritime Provinces of Canada, you hear about the Loyalist.  We don't hear about loyalists, who didn't want war.

  13. JamesGrantSmith profile image58
    JamesGrantSmithposted 4 years ago

    I would say history can be both inaccurate and accurate, as with anything, when you tell a story it can sometimes change a little, but the best stories have elements of truth. Most history would be largely true even if minor elements are inconsistent.