The Secret Life Of Bees Literary Analysis

historical accuracy can

After reading this chapter of Lies My Teacher Told Me, the reader finds out information that is shocking and completely different compared to what they have been taught. Not to mention it makes sense. Ideas have either been falsified or twisted into something that is not entirely true. History textbooks really do leave out the information or give the wrong information, that could really make history more enjoyable and interesting for its

The purpose is to give accurate historical references for both teachers and students. This is valuable, for it indicates that an extended period of time has been examined, and gives a detailed timeline of events that happened related to my question. However, the fact that the author covers about 70 years of history when my question is looking at about 10 years of time takes away from the detail that could have been added to the events that I’m covering.

As an example from “The Drummer Boy” of Shiloh by Ray Bradbury, “In the April night, more than once, blossoms fell from the orchard trees and lit with rustling tops on the drumskin. At Midnight a peach stone left miraculously on a branch through winter flickered by a bird, fell swift and unseen. Struck once like panic, which jerked the boy upright” (Bradbury 318). Already stated from the text is how the literature information is not accurate. Nothing from this is facts from the Civil war. Throughout the text it tells a story from that time and what it could be like, the actual story does not have the basic facts as would a informational text would. On the other hand, from an informational text, “Battle of Shiloh”, “The Battle of Shiloh began at sunrise on April 6, 1862 -- the Sabbath -- as 44,000 Confederate soldiers swooped down on an unsuspecting Union Army encampment near Pittsburgh Landing, a nondescript hog-and-cotton steamboat dock on the Tennessee River.” This is a clear fact with numbers involved. So this tells the reader what was going on and does not have any made up people to fill in the story. It is just simply what had happened. So all in all when comparing two texts one from literature and and informational text they differ in how the reader can learn about the

Can history books be trusted? Many text books just skim the surface or contain author bias. Relying on one source of information can be risky. The story of Christopher Columbus is a specific example. Recent evidence of.

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.

A fictional novel can serve as a useful source for historical information if it the right one. It just depends on the novel and the author who has written it. Also, it makes a difference if the author actually had experience with what they have written about. All Quit on the Western Front, for example, can be used to show the troubles of War World I. The author Erich Maria Remarque himself had been in the war. Nevertheless, there is one negative thing about using nonfiction. For example, a person would still have to do research. A nonfictional novel could be used for historial information depending on the author and their experiences, and if the author has used factual information; however, extra research is still needed.

Novels often give us a picture of what life in a different time period was like. Historical novels especially give us accurate representations of life in other places in history. The novels Death in the Andes and The Underdogs give us a glimpse of what life was like in certain areas of South America when they were war-torn.

Loewen states that textbooks “devote forty-nine pages to the 1930s and forty-seven pages to the 1940s, but few than twenty to the 1980s and 1990s (even tossing the first few years of the millennium) …” (Loewen 260). This allows for history of the past to be more accurate of that than the future because of the controversies that arise. Although it may be good to get a clear picture of what happened in the past, information may be withheld for more recent events and the truth of these issues could be told later to future generations. This is interesting because there may be more intelligence for example on 9/11 that we do not know and will be publicized later. So, all the facts may not be as clear as they would be in the future. A key point that I found very interesting was that history becomes more accurate through the passing of time. Knowing this, is a very important perspective to have and look at recent event today with this in

Should writers change a historical event ? I am con towards this because we need the truth about the -monuments, and black lives matter movement , plus It's called Lying - future generations will have trouble with truth , show heros in their true colors and not in black and white - seen more human . And it will tell why I think they should not change it .

Writing history requires diligence, research, checking and rechecking the information and most of all an understanding that no matter how hard a person tries their own beliefs, biases, and history will color the information they are writing. Having the ability to trace the steps writers take to arrive at certain conclusions helps the readers to assimilate the information with some degree of understanding, if they choose to follow the research. This does not mean that everyone who reads the material will arrive at the same conclusion, however, just as a writer has bias, so does the reader.

YES. History is constantly changing because new evidence is always being discovered. Ryan Malone stated in his article," Rewriting history is admirable when it is done in search of greater historical accuracy in light of new evidence, new facts, or facts that had been ignored because they disagreed with social and cultural interpretations of years past." Old historians are known for not telling the full truth and sugar coating the real story. Today, most historians are more focused on telling the truth, good or bad. Since history teachers are changing the way they teach it is acceptable to rewrite history.

For much of my life as a reader, I tended to side with the “certain writer,” insofar as I didn’t much care about hyper-accurate details—about details in general, to be honest. I tire easily of lengthy description and rigorous itemizing. My inner imagination doesn’t really incorporate them into its narrative vision, anyway. And since I only possess a selective knowledge of history, precise allegiance to recorded facts or exact procedures has always been less important to me than dramatic artistry. Story was all—it didn’t matter what the structure was built out of, only that the whole functioned as the design intended.

Swapping up history, or historical events, makes the story seem unreal and some people misconstrue the wrong story for the true story. Adding superfluous information to a story is changing history. It happened the way it happened for a reason. There is no need to changing the story up.

3) Dates are important and dates are not important. History has importance but not every date and in an age of instant information knowing how to find the needed information and correct information is vital.