I have recently fallen in love with the author Dan Brown and his work. In one of his books, he points out that there is really no way to prove that what we are taught history is acctually what happened in the past. All books have a personal view, even the bible was edited to hold only content that the Church deemed worthy.
So if I may, I am going to pose another excruciatingly painful question. If everything that we think we know is a lie, how can one prove that history has acctually happened? Is it even possible? Can a singular person show the rest of the world the acctual record of events that is mostly unbiased? If so, how would one go about such a task? It would most certainly take a lifetime, and by then more will have changed that he (or she) can not put into writing, therefore starting the viscious cycle of lies in history again.
I will end with a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte: "What is history but a lie agreed upon?"
I read that Lief Erikson and Christopher Columbus both founded America first. There must be a lie in history. They both couldn't of found it first. History taught at my school. I can't really believe it unless there is proof of it.
how can one prove that history has acctually happened?
We need to be clear about what we're talking about. Obviously, "history" doesn't "happen" so we need to get at what you're really trying to ask. If you're asking if we can prove that event X occurred on this date, then sure. But then we have to wonder: what is an event? Take the French Revolution, for example. Events like this don't usually get a name until after the fact. Had King Louis kept his head and maintained control over the state, it might have been called something very different. But we can get more specific - perhaps verifying the day when King Louis was executes. Of course, this brings in more problems - especially since they used a different calendar during the French Revolution.
So really this is a project to match arbitrary names to some particular set of circumstances that occurred on a arbitrary date. And you're asking if we can prove this. Seems to me like we just have to stipulate it, but that's absolutely fine. It's not as if these events didn't happen! It's just hard to narrow down a meaningful and nonarbitrary way of explaining these events. And that's where history comes in.
So really this is a project to match arbitrary names to some particular set of circumstances that occurred on a arbitrary date. And you're asking if we can prove this.
Mayhaps I should have been more specific. When I said history, I was refering to the time before what is now know as AD or ACE, depenpending on what religious view you take. This time period is much harder to prove anything in because all of the texts from that time period are either biased or not fit for the public to read.
The original post makes the history degree in me cry a little bit.
History.... history is everything that has ever happened. What is written is entirely different and that is only a tiny fraction of what history is. Obviously there are going to be differences, but for the most part it can be "roven" through other primary sources, archaeological digs etc. The more we study "history" the more we will learn. Obviously it's fallacious to say now that Christopher Columbus was the first to discover the New World as the original inhabitants crossed over on the ice bridge long long ago. However, it can be accepted that he was the first "modern" european to discover it and the first to establish a colony therein.
History obviously also takes different view points based on the author's intention. For example, in Michelet's Joan of Arc he's looking for something that DEFINES being French (nationalism) and he found that in Joan. He put his own biases and projects his own thoughts onto Joan. he can't know what she actually thought, but he's convincing. (Dr. Swainger, History 300).
In conclusion, the history we have access to can be influenced by ourselves as humans, however, through the proper research and method, it can in a sense be "roven."
[quote]I read that Lief Erikson and Christopher Columbus both founded America first. There must be a lie in history. They both couldn't of found it first.
If I remember correctly, Lief Erikson was told by a friend who had been to America that he should go. Which would mean neither was the first.[/quote]
Well considering that when they arrived they both found the Indians, sorry, Native Americans alive and well.
One thing that has to be taken into account is the bias of the author. The more people who had written about a certain event the more likely there was some truth to it. The hard part is often knowing what to believe.
The original post makes the history degree in me cry a little bit.
Are you insinuating that my OP was ignorant? I take offence sir! jk
I am glad that there is someone on this website who has majored in a field that is relevent to the question. You will most likely bring very good points to this thread.
Are you insinuating that my OP was ignorant? I take offence sir! jk
This should read....
Are you insinuating that my OP was ignorant? I take offence madame! jk
i'm not trying to be nit picky or spammy but stuff like that is just important to most woment i know... so i'm assuming she'll appreciate the correction.
in the op it was asked... can one person really prove that something happened to the rest of the world? It depends on the context. If the person can prove it scientifically.... DNA, Video, voice recorded evidence, etc
of course... these things only pertain to the recent era... there are no videos for all of the rest of history pre invention of video camera. But when someone says,"Planes never flew into the world trade center!!! quit making crap up!!!"...they'll be able to watch it for themselves. If you can find the remains of deceased humans in question, then you can DNA check them and maybe use their descendants as a means to see of that's truly a body that bears the right name... the difficulty of proving what they did in life will most likely be inversely proportional to the degree of advancement in technology at the time in question. Things like newspapers that reference people, pictures, videos, court documents, archeological...etc
I think it depends on what we count as proof. Nowadays, we have Photoshop and other things that can distort what we call "roof" so I don't think history can be proven, at all.
"History is only written by the victors" ~can't remember.
That would be a very famous quote by Winston Churchill.
Well, we all have a right to an opinion so it's your choice whether you believe what is taught to begin with. I don't think that most history can be proven at all. Technology can easily alter any "evidence".
I don't think that one can really count conspiracy theorists. After all there are those who believe that the moon landing didn't happen. As a history major I can say that one can prove history, however, there will always be doubt because we are human. That's natural and a good thing as it pushes study forward.
Also, thanks I just didn't make a big deal out of my gender, I've come to accept that it's rare for girls to play video games etc
Mayhaps I should have been more specific. When I said history, I was refering to the time before what is now know as AD or ACE, depenpending on what religious view you take. This time period is much harder to prove anything in because all of the texts from that time period are either biased or not fit for the public to read.
What are you looking for in history? The facts of the past (i.e. who, what, when, where) or are you just trying to make sense of the past? (i.e. the how and why) If the later I recommend watching Connections with James Burke.
well think about it people of the past left their imprint on the world, for example the pyramids they were built a long time ago and that proves the existence of that culture
