i think the claim by Samuel Butler is closer to the truth because eventhough its biased it refers to the actual state of the situation. The fact that history is in the past makes just a unreliable as sciences. We cannot know exactly what happened in the past, the things we have to trust to know what happened are tales that other people claim that are true. But in reality, when are we able of being completely objective about something we lived? Whether its possitive or negative, the opinion of the person telling the facts will always be biased to one side or the other. Yes, history has facts, and numbers, and dates, but we know then because someone recorded all this, what if they got mixed up? what if they got then wrong? what if they tampered with the evidence?
so, in everysense historians can change history. Only a word can change how we undestand a complete statement. If we wanted to we could change our entire history. Just get a match and burn all of the paper. It's THAT easy playing history. now, how come only because its suposed to be "history" we believe it?
No comments:
Post a Comment