Based on what I read and already knew I believe that history is an essential area of knowledge. History is one of the few AOK that is composed a hundred percent by all the ways of knowing. For it to be what it is it has to be formed by language, reason/ logic, emotions and even faith.
“History is an area of knowledge that studies the recorded past. It raises knowledge questions such as whether it is possible to talk meaningfully about a historical fact and what such a fact might be, or how far we can speak with certainty about anything in the past. Studying history also deepens our understanding of human behavior, as reflecting on the past can help us to make sense of the present.”
But this doesn’t mean it is perfect, since history can be so easily manipulated or biased. This is because to every story there are at least two different sides to it, which can make this biased. A example that I’ve seen during my school years is the Spanish colonization over Mexico. I learned in history that the Spanish came killed many people and even built catholic churches on top of mayan temples. I was taught that the Spanish were the bad ones in this story. But as I grew older I saw the same story from a Spanish standpoint where they came to revolutionize my country. My point with all this is that even when you are not telling a lie that may not be the hole truth. Which is why I think that history is not the most reliable AOK, but it is good to analyze human behavior. Some say say that history is for us to see what when wrong in the past for us to prevent doing the same mistakes in the future.
4 thoughts on “History as an Area of Knowledge”
i agree with what you say but i don’t think people could manipulate history for example how could we know that what is going on in the future and what’s gonna happened, also the military cases was hard to control.
I agree with you saying that every story has 2 sides and no one has really talked about that yet so good job for seeing the details behind history and storytelling
what are some ways that you think history could be biased?
At the start of the paragraph, you talk about history being 100% about knowing, but then later you talk about it not being entirely perfect, how can it be 100% about knowing. If you are giving false information, is that knowing or is it more of a story or myth?