History as an area of knowledge

We use a textbook to learn history every time. However, when we consider whether history is true, we hardly say yes because I think it is written based on facts but not the truth. History is more like watching a fiction movie. History is the subject that influenced by the author’s perceptions and circumstances, and it is very unclear because there is no way to verify it.

“bias present in the document itself. The reasons for which the record was created. The perceptions of the document’s creator”

“In-depth analysis and interpretation of a historical document is an important step in the genealogical research process, allowing us to distinguish between fact, opinion, and assumption, and explore reliability and potential bias when weighing the evidence it contains”

These are a similar opinion to me which were in the article “Analyzing a Historical Document”. History describes what happened in the past that it becomes uncertain things over time, so we might think there is a problem with history but actually people who recognize history, us, have a problem. I believe it is important to examine history not only from one point of view but from a different perspective. Therefore, history does not exist to have discrimination or bias but to connect it to our present life.  Because of history, many of us hold stereotypes about other countries and even murder is occurring. History is one of an area of knowledge that studies historical fact and can build our knowledge, but we must think what and how do you want to learn from history before we started.



7 thoughts on “History as an area of knowledge”

  1. I strongly agree with you. History is like a storytelling and it depends on the person who tells us. We hear different stories from the same facts.

  2. Miku, some of your statements puzzle me.

    A) “based on facts but not the truth.” What does that mean? Give an example.

    B) “there is no way to verify it.” This is too absolute. If I have a birth certificate showing that Joe Shmo was born on July 2, 1843; and a certificate of baptism showing that he was baptized on July 5, 1843; and a letter from Mr. Shmo to his brother, dated July 4, 1843, saying that his son Joe was born on the 2nd and will be baptized the next day—then don’t we have enough evidence to believe with very strong confidence that Joes Shmo was born on July 2, 1843?

    C) “history does not exist to have discrimination or bias but to connect it to our present life.” I just don’t know what that means.

    Rule: Always support a general statement with a specific example that explains it!

  3. i agree with you sooooooooo~ much, history is a kind of material which told us what’s happening in the past and we cannot think about a things from a few aspect only. I like the description that you made for history (history is like a fiction movie ).

  4. We need to hame some doubts about what really happened when we are learning history. I agree with you. History can be manipulated to benefit someone or something.

  5. I don’t agree that history is like watching a fiction movie. Sure, some of it might not be entirely true, but I believe that most of it is. Of course, there are many ways in which in can be altered in the textbooks, but I think that history is mostly true.

  6. I thought your example of history being like watching a fiction movie was very interesting. Although history may not be completely true it is not like a fiction movie where everything is made up based on bias and stories.

Leave a Reply