Comments on: Historical Truth http://collectedmiscellany.com/2004/03/historical-truth/ writing for Google since 2003 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:00:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: sadis http://collectedmiscellany.com/2004/03/historical-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-261 sadis Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:17:55 +0000 http://collectedmiscellany.com/2004/03/historical-truth/#comment-261 Exactly, historical truth does not exist. Just think of all the lies they told about the Nazis Exactly, historical truth does not exist. Just think of all the lies they told about the Nazis

]]> By: Makro http://collectedmiscellany.com/2004/03/historical-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-260 Makro Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:24:12 +0000 http://collectedmiscellany.com/2004/03/historical-truth/#comment-260 I am currently taking an IB History course, and what we get told the whole time is "There is no such thing as historical truth!!!". I agree that a historian must eliminate bias, and be able to look at history in it's context, but who is not biased? It is impossible not to be biased. We all are in one way or another. An example of our false perception of history is that of the USSR before the opening of the archives. Whole books had to be rewritten when the 'true' nature of the Soviet Union was revealed by countless new documents. How can we know that what we know now is historically accurate? What I mean to say is that the above thing on the existence of historical truth is not accurate, and that it is impossible to eliminate bias. A good historian tries to analyse history from all perspectives, so that he can eliminate bias, but it will always exist. That's why, a real history book doesn't say 'this is how it was .....' ... it will say 'blabla says it was this, and blabla says it was that .... actually it could be an inbetween of the two, or blablablablabla ' .... sorry guys, I'll stop waffling on now. I'm becoming too much like my history lecturer ;P ... Please post any comments if u've got an oppinion on this. I am currently taking an IB History course, and what we get told the whole time is “There is no such thing as historical truth!!!”. I agree that a historian must eliminate bias, and be able to look at history in it’s context, but who is not biased? It is impossible not to be biased. We all are in one way or another.
An example of our false perception of history is that of the USSR before the opening of the archives. Whole books had to be rewritten when the ‘true’ nature of the Soviet Union was revealed by countless new documents. How can we know that what we know now is historically accurate?
What I mean to say is that the above thing on the existence of historical truth is not accurate, and that it is impossible to eliminate bias. A good historian tries to analyse history from all perspectives, so that he can eliminate bias, but it will always exist. That’s why, a real history book doesn’t say ‘this is how it was …..’ … it will say ‘blabla says it was this, and blabla says it was that …. actually it could be an inbetween of the two, or blablablablabla ‘ …. sorry guys, I’ll stop waffling on now. I’m becoming too much like my history lecturer ;P … Please post any comments if u’ve got an oppinion on this.

]]> By: The View from the Foothills http://collectedmiscellany.com/2004/03/historical-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-262 The View from the Foothills Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:52:34 +0000 http://collectedmiscellany.com/2004/03/historical-truth/#comment-262 <strong>History!</strong> Collected Miscellany has a couple of posts on the writing of history. The first points out that history is about determining and recording historical truth--not about exporting present day politics into the past. This should go without saying. The seco... History!

Collected Miscellany has a couple of posts on the writing of history. The first points out that history is about determining and recording historical truth–not about exporting present day politics into the past. This should go without saying. The seco…

]]>