History is a way of knowing that studies the documented past. It also raises questions to understand, for example, whether it is possible to speak in a serious way about an historical fact based on something that has happened and what that fact might consist of, or to what extent we can speak truthfully of anything that has happened in the past. Studying history also deepens our way of understanding human behavior, since everything reflected on the past can help us to understand our present.
History is important. If you don’t know history it is as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, anybody up there in a position of power can tell you anything, and you have no way of checking up on it.
— Howard Zinn
History raises many questions, this ones inform us and help us to cope with the present with less possibility of falling into error than in the past, since thanks to history we have the answer to most things. Historical documents that have been collected over time also play an important role in history, leading to questions based on whether or not such information could be considered reliable.
“History is for human self-knowledge… the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is.”
―
It is true that historical writing could be subjective, since historians are influenced by the social and historical environment in which they write, and this inevitably affects their selection and interpretation of evidence, but that is inevitable, we are all in a way influenced by society and the times we live in. History teach us many things which, if they were not documented under history, would hinder us in the present, because everything learned from the past through history can help us better understand the world and the human beings. So History must be known as an AOK.
Cristina, as with many of your classmates’ posts, this is too general. You need to refer to specific passages from several of the assigned articles; examine the tools and methods used by historians and readers of history to ensure accuracy; analyze alternative perspectives; compare & contrast with other AOKs; consider how the Ways of Knowing operate in historical studies; etc. Additional editing and proofreading are needed as well.
I think that if you used specific examples it would be much stronger. You have a lot of good points, but what about when the history is false/incorrect and then we don’t do that because someone said that it was bad. I think a lot of time people test the history out and try and prove or go against it so I don’t think that it gives less error.