How Much of Written History Is True?

The usual reaction to this is that there are the facts and there are the interpretations of the facts.

Even the recording of the facts can be biased, and this version can prevail for many years. For example there is a one sided witness account of the Roman conquest of Gaul because the Celts were not into writing their history. We have a very detailed account from Julius Caesar who was not only a great general but also one of the most literate people of his era. His facts are indisputable and this was classical history until recently. Given time, and modern academic technique, Historians have built on this and other sparse sources to flesh it all out and develop a realistic history of this period that is unflattering to the great man, and certainly not Roman propaganda.

Our accounts of World War II from war reporters, propaganda, the media, Hollywood, and even from veterans certainly give the impression that America won it, and the other participants on the Allied side were peripheral. However, a fair interpretation of the contribution of the British Empire from 1939 to 1945 might conclude that those countries did more to secure the final victory than the United States.

Regardless of that, most now agree that the war was actually decided on the Russian front where the majority of the fighting took place. The American contribution was probably most unambiguous in the Pacific, but even there the threat of Russian forces moving in was a major factor in the collapse of Japan - possibly even more so than the atomic bombs.

However, it is the American War of Independence that is most interesting in this respect. We tend to have a very distorted view of what it was about and why it panned out the way it did. But it was our war, and the rest of the world seems to be happy for us to bathe in our delusions.

Police say eye wittiness are usually useless. When watching the news or reading a history book, I always question the so called facts. I think this method of input from different tangents helps bring out the truth. I find that events that happen during your life are more believable and easier to understand and retain. People who speak with all knowing authority scare me. I think this site brings out different views and is very healthy.

www.google.com

define:historiography

There is the saying: "If you want to study history, first study the historian."

This would suggest the premise of this subject as stated by smcbride is correct. Written history is mainly just written opinions.

One of the most glaring examples of subject matter that seems applicable to this theory is war.

The written history of the Vietnamese war (with US) documents this phenomenon. To date, schools all over the US fail to address with any depth the controversy and differing viewpoints of what that war was all about.

What is currently written about the "war on terrorism", specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq, continues this trend. Who knows how history text books will depict this.

TO ANSWER THIS INQUIRY WE MUST ASK FOR A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME. I HAVE FOUND THAT WRITTEN HISTORY HAS BEEN BIASED. HISTORICALY , HISTORY WAS PASSED ON THROUGH VARIOUS CULTURAL VEHICLES ie. STORYTELLING, MUSIC, DANCE, RITUALS, ART,ETC. ARE THESE INCLUDED AS VALID MEANS OF ACCURATE INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION. IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF EXAMPLES WERE GIVEN OF HOW WRITTEN OPINIONS HAVE CHANGED WITH TIME.

of it.

This is a curious question. I don't think the answer is a matter of quantity. We should ask, not how much of history, written or otherwise, is true, but what kind of truth, or truths, does written history provide? What are the qualities of historical truth?

In the ancient world history was a minor branch of rhetoric. (Rhetoric now, of course, is a minor branch of communication - the harlot of the humanities, while history is sacrosanct.) Which is to say that everyone knew that the writing or speaking of historical truth was a persuasive enterprise. As a matter of argument the truths history yields are never, ideally, objective, "scientific," or pure. Instead, they are human: best when contingent, ironic, and interesting (just like real people). No one wants to read a boring story of the past. Or one that cannot move. And, to be a good historian (as in student of history), one must know how to read.

So we may wish to reframe, too, the other points. History is more often traditionally written by historians, many of whom are employed by the victors. Some of the best, though, is written by vanquished historians or even disinterested historians. And because history is rhetorical there will always be at least two sides to every historical event. The way to judge is by understanding the quality of arguments. There is truth in written history but that truth should never be thought of in contrast to written opinions, for opinions can also be true as they are a matter of judgment and argument. (e.g., I am of the opinion that people should live within their means.) Finally, because history is rhetorical that means it is contingent or time-bound: just as past events in a person's life take on new meaning as they age so too historical events take on new meaning as the times change. So history is a changing just like the times.