do you believe official history book?
if without official history book,how people can know true history? can people really know true history?
if without official history book,how people can know true history? can people really know true history?
do you believe official history book?
| Cliffer wrote: |
| do you believe official history book?
if without official history book,how people can know true history? can people really know true history? |
What do you define as "official"?
There´s in science, especially history, always a sort of consensus regarding events. Normally you can´t take issues with dates and facts. Like the date of a battle or of a disaster. OTOH you can and do discuss what ramifications exist for that fact, like what does the destruction of the three Varus Legions mean for the future development of Europe....
Historians all the world over are a lot more sceptical reagarding their "official" sources today, than they were a hundred years ago. History tends to be the history of the winners. So the other viewpoint is sometimes very hard to find.
And there´s always the distortion from your own culture, when you look at something past. I don´t think we can understand how a celt felt, when he walked through his drumeton or even how a 17th century peasant looked upon the paintings of a church. What I think we can do is kind of "distill" out of history some statistical laws, which show the limitations and required circumstances for certain events. As an Example, you need a certain amount of food to support a citylike settlement, you cant grow a town in a desert.
So, if you mean by "official" the consensus of the majority of historians, yes, I believe we can at least mostly trust that as a best effort to understand.
If you mean that the sources are governmental, I have my doubts
History books, on the whole, are slanted to favor the country that prints them.
For recent history, there are many archives of video, newspaper, diaries, and other forms of records kept which you can sift through in order to get a fairly clear picture of things. Even a few hundred years ago there was news print, but it was basically in it's infancy as far as mass production and distribution, so it was very biased, and they made no attempts to hide that bias. So be careful about reading "official documents" from historical archives.
Previous to the last few centuries or so, trust in science as your key to history. Look at geological records, examine artifacts from site digs, and compare historical records from different places. If Ancient Empire 'A' has a written document saying that they were invaded by Ancient Empire 'B', try to find correlating information in the written records and physical evidence of Ancient Empire 'B'. If there are artifacts from 'B' in the geographical region of 'A' such as weapons, bones that have signs of violence, etc., then it's a good bet that the written record of 'A' is correct. Also try to find third party evidence, that is much more solid. Use the internet too, there's a wealth of information on here, but do your research and check your sources thoroughly.
Using only a history book to learn history is like using Lego's to learn how to build a house. The general ideas are there, but so much is missing or just plain wrong. That's why history books get updated every few years, after some science department digs up some new evidence.
For recent history, there are many archives of video, newspaper, diaries, and other forms of records kept which you can sift through in order to get a fairly clear picture of things. Even a few hundred years ago there was news print, but it was basically in it's infancy as far as mass production and distribution, so it was very biased, and they made no attempts to hide that bias. So be careful about reading "official documents" from historical archives.
Previous to the last few centuries or so, trust in science as your key to history. Look at geological records, examine artifacts from site digs, and compare historical records from different places. If Ancient Empire 'A' has a written document saying that they were invaded by Ancient Empire 'B', try to find correlating information in the written records and physical evidence of Ancient Empire 'B'. If there are artifacts from 'B' in the geographical region of 'A' such as weapons, bones that have signs of violence, etc., then it's a good bet that the written record of 'A' is correct. Also try to find third party evidence, that is much more solid. Use the internet too, there's a wealth of information on here, but do your research and check your sources thoroughly.
Using only a history book to learn history is like using Lego's to learn how to build a house. The general ideas are there, but so much is missing or just plain wrong. That's why history books get updated every few years, after some science department digs up some new evidence.
"History" is a product of the powers that be and their bias.
For example much of our western cutlure "history" lies within the control of the Catholic church.
History must be approached with a open mind and multiple sources to even begin to have a glimmer of truth in reporting.
For example much of our western cutlure "history" lies within the control of the Catholic church.
History must be approached with a open mind and multiple sources to even begin to have a glimmer of truth in reporting.
| BinahZ wrote: |
| "History" is a product of the powers that be and their bias.
For example much of our western cutlure "history" lies within the control of the Catholic church. History must be approached with a open mind and multiple sources to even begin to have a glimmer of truth in reporting. |
History books have a certain degree of credibility because their authors have consulted many sources, and evaluated them critically for accuracy. Many of these sources are secondary sources, which themselves are products of painstaking evaluations of other secondary and primary sources. A history textbook is in effect a product of lots of fact checking by many historians throughout time. Ah, the wonders of activity 
Similarly, Wikipedia has a certain elevated degree of credibility, particularly for articles that many people (including experts) have edited and read. Big controversial articles on Wikipedia (such as Global warming) I therefore trust very much.
A problem with my reasoning (particularly for history books) is if the work is not fact-based but subject to taste. Then a large part of a history book can be unreliable "spin" made by the authors. Facts on the other hand are either true or false, important or unimportant, so they can be "filtered" reliably by the process of fact checking I described.
Similarly, Wikipedia has a certain elevated degree of credibility, particularly for articles that many people (including experts) have edited and read. Big controversial articles on Wikipedia (such as Global warming) I therefore trust very much.
A problem with my reasoning (particularly for history books) is if the work is not fact-based but subject to taste. Then a large part of a history book can be unreliable "spin" made by the authors. Facts on the other hand are either true or false, important or unimportant, so they can be "filtered" reliably by the process of fact checking I described.
It is only through peer-assessment that academics decide what is credible or not. There is no 'official'.
| lagoon wrote: |
| It is only through peer-assessment that academics decide what is credible or not. There is no 'official'. |
Agreed
My only bone with that is that truth is seldom democratic...
And even in physics, the classical "hard science" there are factors like credibility or a kind of "fashion" which influence the accepteted view heavily. Even more so in the "soft sciences" like history.
Actually I dont believe the everything in the official history books. because mostly countries see the history only from their side because of that sometimes they skip some important points even if that points are very important for the human history.. it's better to read alot of things from different writers and see the opposite ideas of the same subject. so in that time people can see all the opinions and see and understand the real results of history..
NO! idon't believe in it! some offical history book just fake!
| lagoon wrote: |
| It is only through peer-assessment that academics decide what is credible or not. There is no 'official'. |
Oh, yes, what I forgot on my last post: What would you call the version of history children are thought in school?
Related topics
 |