Most people agree on the version of historical events, The problem is that it is hard to state how credible sources are considering that there are many factors that may lead someone into modifying history.
On the one hand, it is true that history is taken from signed and dated documents which can not be modified, so how could history be altered? That is why many people argue that it is unaltered and what changes is the way we perceive it.
On the other hand, there are many ways to analyse history without legal documents. For example the history that is passed from mouth to mouth and from generation to generation has no way to be proven,
Moreover many times even though there is real evidence to support the facts, politicians modify history so as to hide or highlight certain aspects that make them appear better during their campaigns for instance.
In conclusion, I believe that there is no way to know if all the history is true because even though some information may be justifiable, most of it is not because it is a fact that it all depends on who wrote it, for example, during battles, the story is usually told by the winning side, so it tends to be a one sided argument. It is a popular mechanism for politicians and political campaigns to alter history and evidences so as to glorify their side of history.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario