If historians omit the driving force behind a historical event that caused it to happen are historians lying about it? ?
- JeromeLv 61 month agoFavorite Answer
- All hatLv 71 month ago
Of course that would be incomplete reporting. But I wouldn't so lightly suggest that historians do that. That's like asking, do drivers who drive blindfolded tend to have more accidents?
- Old Man DirtLv 71 month ago
History tends to make those who ended up on top models of virtue!
It does not mean they are lying, it means they tend to put the emphasis on things which make the winners look good.
For example if two horses race each other one horse is bound to be the winner and the other finished last. Another way of putting the same race is one horse finished next to last and the other horse finished second. Neither is a lie, both are true and both encourage insertion of facts if either presentation fails to note how many horses were in the race.
History tends to be propaganda and that means the evidence is tainted.
- IIIIILv 51 month ago
depends on the historical event being talked about. ie u cant talk about the American Civil War without what finally built up to it
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 month ago
- Elaine MLv 71 month ago
Short answer, 'no'.
If you're interested in the entire event, do your research from multiple sources.
- abdulLv 71 month ago
Of course. They are white washing the actual history.
- ◄♦►Lv 51 month ago
"Lying" is a harsh word to use when "ignorant" is more accurate.
People tend to be intellectually lazy. They'd rather support the popular view than verify the facts for themselves.
"The problem is not that people are uneducated. The problem is that they are educated just enough to believe what they've been taught and not educated enough to question what they've been taught."
They also deceive themselves when they apply today's standards to the standards being practiced at the time.
- ioerrLv 71 month ago
if they don't specifically lay out an inference like that for you, sure, they could be lying
more likely is they just don't agree with you about whatever that inference is, don't think there's evidence to really support it. and if they don't feel like there's anything to support any inference, they may not give you one at all
historians don't uniformly agree about everything you know.
that's why you're not supposed to just accept absolutely everything any given source tells you as if it's gospel