Is history being rewritten constantly?

Anyone know of any examples where the truth is.blurred through using history books to make up stories and cite them as fact? Doesn't it sometimes seem like the history books want to paint a certain picture that they want to impose on us and such?

History teachers are more important because they will chose which books their students will be learning from and in what manner the information presented.

History teachers are more important because they will chose which books their students will be learning from and in what manner the information presented.

--------

not in k-12 they are chosen from a few companies who have all been inundated with liberal marxist writers in america

compare older histy books as i said earlier from the 50's - 80's to the crap they pawn off as us history today

But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or a girl.

But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or a girl.



that is so true!

last night my daughter asked me how to spell history.


then she said.. "mom.. listen to this.. his story!" then she laughed out loud like she was the first person to ever think of that.

then she decided it's supposed to be "hi story!"

you start it off by saying 'hi' then the rest of the story.

But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or a girl.



that is so true!

last night my daughter asked me how to spell history.


then she said.. "mom.. listen to this.. his story!" then she laughed out loud like she was the first person to ever think of that.

then she decided it's supposed to be "hi story!"

you start it off by saying 'hi' then the rest of the story.


Thats pretty cool

Anything from history anyone feels could have been made up to suit a certain agenda? And if so, do explain!

Anything from history anyone feels could have been made up to suit a certain agenda? And if so, do explain!

Anything from history anyone feels could have been made up to suit a certain agenda? And if so, do explain!

Anything from history anyone feels could have been made up to suit a certain agenda? And if so, do explain!

Here's an example of history not being 'made up', but being presented in a different way in order to tell a completely different story (which is the way it works most of the time). It's difficult to make things up entirely, because there's too many amateur historians out there. You can't just make stuff up these days - but you can present the evidence there is in many different ways.

Throughout the 20th century - especially in the post-war years and up to the 70's, the early history of Britain was described in terms of 'waves of invasion' (Look at any history text book or schoolbook). Our island was 'conquered' or 'invaded' by, 'Beaker people' in the Bronze Age, continental tribes in the Iron Age, then the Romans, then Vikings, Normans and so-on. Each of them brought new pottery, new technology, new language etc. These were 'violent' invasions and this version of history was a direct reflection of the age - the 1st and 2nd world wars and the threat of invasion influenced the way history was interpreted.

In the late 70's through the 80's and 90's, this version of history changed (again, you'll see it in the text books and schoolbooks). The new story was that these periods in British history were closer to being 'consensual agreements' rather than outright 'invasions'. Changes in pottery styles were put down to 'fashion', new technology was due to new international contact through trade etc. Despite there being evidence of violence in some cases, these events were now seen to be largely 'peaceful invasions'. Material culture changed because of fashion rather than force; Changes in language and currency now seen as matters of political and economic expediency. Everything was about international trade and 'assimilation' rather than 'invasion'. Again, history becomes a reflection of the age in which it is being written.

Back to the present.. The BBC have a new series out here in the UK called 'Seven Ages Of Britain'. It's one of the BBC's 'flagship' type programs - 'David Dimbleby charts a landmark history of Britain's greatest art and artefacts over 2,000 years, in Seven Ages Of Britain. The seven-part series of 60-minute programmes, shot in HD, begins at 9.00pm on Sunday 31 January 2010.' The first programme in the series was called....'The Age of Conquest'!!! It was all about invasions.

Looks like history is changing again! The history of Britain is going back to being a history of conquests and invasions - a reflection of the age?

Is the past a reflection of the present? Does the past inform the present?

You can't change the 'facts' of history as such, but you can interpret them and present them in such a way as to argue almost any point. Whether that 'point' becomes the 'accepted' story or not is very much down to the political mood of the day.

Hope that helps.

That's the whole point of the historian's work.

No.