Historicly true.... So we are told.

Then don't read it, you will be in the majority in that case. There are so many people who have said that those who are ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of their fathers that its not worth trying to attribute it. I'm not going to waste any time explaining how historiography works, as it seems apparent that you only came here to object to history, not to learn anything or engage in an open discussion. By the way, the word is spelled "historically." When you have a point to make, you will always be more effective if you don't make rudimentary errors such as that.

History is told by those who won the battles. You are right, it's very hard to know exactly what happened, but it is that way with almost anything. Best thing to do is just ignore it, or it will make you a bitter, lonely, and broken man.

Actually lightfoot, there have been many times in which people were taught either slightly biased or even completely false history. For example, the journalists in the 1800's would make Indians sound vicious by labelling their victories as massacres and the troop victories as triumphs. Then there is the current issue of the North Korean falsification of history in which they purposely teach children and adults completely fabricated tales.

I've just been reading Bill Bryson's "Made in America" in which he exposes some of the "myths" surrounding the Early colonization and the War of Independence. Such issues are merely "interesting" to me as a Brit, but I suppose cause upset to some Americans with vested interests in patriotism etc.

Who cares about patriotism?

Sorry to use this as an opportunity to rant, but people need to settle down with all of this patriotism stuff. All that should really matter to a people is whether or not their country is taking care of their citizens, if it is living up to it's ethic standards in domestic and foreign policy, and if it is actually effective as a governing power. Unfortunately, people don't realize these basic principles and actually believe that whatever country they grow up in is the country to which they must sacrifice everything in time of need.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't defend our country or stay out of the army altogether, by the way. What I mean is that people are too caught up in unwavering nationalism that they don't bother to understand the motives behind their government's actions.

It is these same people who become enraged when anyone tells them the awful truth about the history of their county. Yes, the truth hurts. Get over it. Life isn't always so sugar-coated.

People have the wrong ideas in their heads and always have, there has to be some way to give them a clue.

Again, sorry about the rant. I just needed to get that out of my system once fresco introduced the idea of people being needlessly offended because of their patriotism.

No one in their right minds makes a claim of anything being "Historically true". "True" is entirely dependent on knowledge of every aspect of the event including what all of the players actually knew at the time of the event. Gaining that level of insight isn't really attainable.

Events are usually portrayed as "Historically Accurate" which only requires that it be faithful to at least one single persons view of the event. The more viewpoints and information gathered lends to a history that increases in accuracy but not necessarily in truth.

Very complicated, as one's own viewpoint can change minute by minute, with advancing years, under different influences of thought and perhaps selfmedication, or even soulsearching. Plus the little matter of writing for posterity.. or even in case your brother in law sees it.

I too believe that nothing can be taken literally as being 100% historically authentic. I will soon graduate and go into the teaching profession at the high school level, and will introduce my class to the philosophy of history or what drives history. All too often students are told what to believe and never question the "other side". I feel it is essential for students to research many angles and draw their own conclusions. On the flip side just because something can't be taken as 100% authentic that doesn't mean that there isn't truth there or there isn't any type of knowledge that can be gained.

gubes

No offence, but as a history major, have you not been required to have a basic historiography class? At the U of Washington we took it the semester we declared the major. It introduced us to historiography and historical theory, as well as the mechanics of writing a strong paper.

We had and have to cover all that within the first term, at least before having finished "basic studies" here at German (and Austrian) universities.

Indeed, it was HIST 211, or something like that. The pre-req was completion of the 101,102,103 series (western Civ), and you had to complete 211 before going on to any other history classes. Coincidentally, 211 was the only 200 level class that would count for the major, so you had to go onto upper division classes after that.

Wellllllllllll, I'd kind of like to do history studies now, though I'd get miffed at deadlines. Plus I might not take advice. What, what, I guess what I really want is access and time.

History is always written by the winners.

Well, most of my books: not :wink:

God, here we go, once again . . . Napoleon wrote that history is written by the winners, he lost, and history has been very kind to him indeed. The Brits won that one, and given their attitude toward Napoleon, had they written the only history, he would be remembered as being as bad as or worse than Hitler.

True, Set. There are more memorials and statues in Central London to British heroes of Napoleonic battles than to their WWII counterparts.

KP

Maybe that was true before 1930, but not anymore. The most innovative research deals with the "others" in history. Examples include the Native Aericans in US historty, American Immigration History, Race Class and Gender in history, etc...

Back in the long ago days of the core curriculum, I was required to take a historiography course the second semester of my freshmen year. You had to take a basic writing course the first semester or you could not take the history course the second semester. Those requirements have long been dropped. As a result I have students who have no clue what a chronology is never mind never mind knowing how to analyse a document. Skills which are useful if not critical in disciplines other than history. They are however very politically correct and can spot an ethic, racial or gender slight at a mile, (a kilometer and a half).

Yah. the diploma mill where I have a lecturer spot (which I'm losing next fall, since they actually hired a medievalist into a tenture track position. Sigh...back to the world o'TA'ing. ) doesn't require any sort of "Intro to the study of history" class either, nor does it even require Western Civ as a prereq to upper division European classes!
CU Boulder, where I'm a grad student, however, does, as did UMBC. In fact, for most of us at UMBC, our first TA experience was as a discussion group leader for the basic histroiography class.