Profoundly Misleading History

History is happening all around us, whether it is affecting us positively or negatively. History is an occurrence of events that have made an impact so big that we emphasize them today. From the Sumerians, to the latest recorded history, we are creating history within. History is happening every day, but it is up to us the retreat back the occurrences of the past life. It is because of history that we function the way we do. For example, through the 15th century, occurrences happened, for example the diversity of people seen throughout the new world. You’ll see that conflict and tension led to experiences with self-government and that the questioning of authority of the church led to diverse religions. Everything that happened in the past has led us to have the history we do today.

This paper deals with ways history can be interpreted and influences different interpretations have on society and individuals. This is explored through

Is History True? Handlin argues yes, while McNeill argues no. I am not one to decide for someone else if they think it is or not. However, I do believe most history is. Although, a great deal of our history went unrecorded, the amount we have can suffice to show that what’s happened in the past can happen again in a contemporary situation.

In reading a Little History of the World by E.H. Gombrich you realize that history seems so much less complicated when you are the one standing back and reflecting on the past. You realize how easy it is to often forget that every single new idea, religion and war was a struggle that lasted generations upon generations. History is more than just a page or a story, its our account of the world. That goes to show how short life and history is, you realize that history is always repeating, war after war, peace then war. There are good and bad periods in history and its up to us to learn from them. In a way history is much like a human being it goes through stages, learns about life, and has inner struggles or wars about their ideas and their beliefs.

In Telling the Truth About History, three historians discuss how the expanded skepticism and the position that relativism has reduced our capacity to really know and to expound on the past. The book talks about the written work of history and how individuals are battling with the issues of what is “truth.” It likewise examines the post-modernist development and how future historians

Is history always the way it has been told, or are there multiple truths that meet in one point and intersect? Presentism is what modern historians do to the past. The way in which presentism reveals and formats information about history is simplified and modified. This, for the most part, is not the exact way these events took place. Important parts and concepts are changed in order to fit into modern views and interpretation. Many historians are accepting of either the victim's or perpetrator's side. Sometimes picking one particular side may skew the hard facts of the situation or event. Failure of telling the accurate past can lead

Not all is known and the facts passed down may not reveal the whole truth. History is biased and can easily be manipulated by those with more power, and it is a modern historian’s job to weed through the commonly accepted information, and try to find the truth. If the truth is not found, then they present alternative theories to broaden the world’s knowledge on the possible course of events in the

Even though W.E.B. Du Bois, Richard Wright, and Gunnar Myrdal are all three very different men, that come from different viewpoints on the topic of race, they still believe the same thing. The Propaganda of History, The Ethics of Living Jim Crow: An Autobiographical Sketch, and An American Dilemma, are three different books that all talk about race.

Recorded history is nothing but the belief or bias of the man who wrote it. Often when discussing history, people us the popular phrase, “the winner writes the history books” or something along the lines. But nevertheless, the phrase does hold true. All history that is written is biased, but it is up to the reader to find the truth in within history. No matter what history is written, there will always be a different perspective, a different society, and a different perception of what is truly going on. History does not tell us the absolute truth, but it gives us a morphed version of the truth that we, as readers, must interpret to find the truth.

In this paper, I will be outlining the costs and benefits of social and technological fixes, and then I will be assessing the use of social and technological fixes of air pollution through the use of automobiles.

A historian picks and chooses what information to analyze. By leaving out some information it is also a form of manipulation and twisting the past. I think that this shows a direct link between a historian and a mythologizer, whose job it is to twist history for another purpose.

“One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.”

It was a common saying of the past that the history of a conflict was told by the victors. That was true then, the losers of the conflict had to rebuild after their defeat and the winners could share their side of the story, twisting it so it would seem that they did no harm and the losers deserved defeat because they were the villains. This is not true today. With the wealth of information at one’s finger tips and the available research opportunities the stories can be untangled and both sides of the story can be told. However, some have held strong to the truths that their side proclaimed and refuse to admit that their victory was tarnished by lies, deceits, and omissions. This very idea is what shaped how

How does the way history is told have power in our understanding of the past and present?

What is History? This is the question posed by historian E.H. Carr in his study of historiography. Carr debates the ongoing argument which historians have challenged for years, on the possibility that history could be neutral. In his book he discusses the link between historical facts and the historians themselves. Carr argues that history cannot be objective or unbiased, as for it to become history, knowledge of the past has been processed by the historian through interpretation and evaluation. He argues that it is the necessary interpretations which mean personal biases whether intentional or not, define what we see as history. A main point of the chapter is that historians select the facts they think are significant which ultimately