History books. We believe what is written in them. What if the Historians left out truths they didn't like and added things that never happened? How would we know?

To a degree yes, but you do have to be careful about those kinds of arguments as they're often employed by right wing whack-jobs who want to offer revisionist tales that try to justify white supremacy and theocratic views.

We wouldnt. The 'Winners' get to write the history books. That is why Historians get so exited every time old letters are found in an attic describing 'current events' of some long ago time. It improves the picture of historical events.

Yes#!!!

that's why archaeology is needed. Archaeology reveals history from the artefacts and found objects. 

I have reason to believe that a lot of the people who wrote history books did leave out truths they didn't like, and quite possibly added things that never happened. Happy Sunday, Rosie!:)

you have a point, i dont think we can ever really know if something really happened since we werent there

Those are the exact folks whom I have in  mind. Like writing science books and eliminating any mention of  evolution for example. Thank you  for your reply CSV and Happy July 4th Monday to thee! :)

Not a very comforting answer my friend. But it's honest. So we can never know. Oy vey! Thank you for your answer AndyB and Happy July 4th Monday to thee. I know you don't celebrate it honey for obvious reasons! :)

That totally creeps me out pearl. We can't ever know some truths. Thank you for your reply! :)

100% of the time Siegfried?  People lie all the time. I think that includes Historians on whom we rely to record what happened.  It's like flying blind. Thank you for your reply and Happy July 4th Monday! :)

That's so true, we'll never know the real deal. Different people would have different versions, right?

Thank you for your reply JakobA and Happy July 4th Monday! :)

A few years ago some Texas folks rewrote the science books to eliminate any mention of evolution. I think they were sued and had to rewrite the book. Can you imagine that? Sending kids to school to learn lies as if they were truth? Rewriting history for whatever reason I think is evil. It results in a populace that is ignorant and when you are ignorant you are easily controlled,manipulated,brainwashed. Thank you for your reply BSurf and Happy 4th of July Monday! :)

The first thing to recognise Rosie, is that there is no such thing as a single historical story.  The old saying about 'winners writing history' is true up to a point, but it loses some veracity when people read beyond the headlines.  The problem is that during our school years we usually get just the headlines, at least with 'traditional' history teaching that tended to concentrate on names, dates, 'facts', etc but leaves out much of the story itself.  I would compare that to watching a film without CGI.  The actors are there, speaking and moving, but there's just no scenery, no background, no proper context, just a dull, blank, green screen.

Almost every era and area of history has been gone over repeatedly in the last 50 years or so.  It's one of the things that pleases me most about the development of my subject.  While this has allowed us a greater understanding of many past events, it has also opened the door for revisionist 'historians' who are motivated by things other than accuracy.  The saddest example of this I can think of is David Irving.  Irving has the ability of a fine historian with an extensive knowledge of WW2 and the years surrounding it.  Unfortunately he is also an ideologue, a racist and a holocaust denier.

For a historian, that's a bit like Stephen Hawking not being able to accept the reality of multiplication tables.  It's silly, and a talented historian has made a fool both of himself and of his subject (because naturally the press in the past have taken him far more seriously than he deserves and have provided him with platforms to spread this nonsense - while disagreeing with him all the time, of course).

Irving serves as an example (although an extreme one) that demonstrates that historians think in different ways.  Many 'approaches' to historical thinking are affected by how those constructing them perceive the world.  So we have Marxist historians for example, who will see history's sweep through the prism of 'the workers'.  That kind of thing is no more likely to present the public with the'truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' they desire than a role call of kings, queens and battles.  Put the two together however, and one has opposing views to compare.  If a person can avoid their own innate prejudices, that will bring them closer to getting a 'right' answer.

It's not like there's any lack of historical theories to gather information from.....  :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_history

And that's really the only issue for me - is what is presented the only thing that is presented.  If that's the case one will almost always get an incomplete, slanted picture and will have less protection from any distortions (deliberate or otherwise) that may be present.  There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but it's a serious error for a person to assume that View X is the only view simply because it's the only view they have been exposed to.  That has never been the case.  Much like the present, the past is far more complicated than that.

A few years ago in Texas there was a big brouha. "They" rewrote science textbooks omitting any reference to evolution substituting it with whatever religious dogma fit. I believe they were sued and didn't get away with it. But this is what goes on. Revisionist history. We have books being written by idealogues who slant/skew the truth when they are not telling outright lies. You listen to the Dick Cheneys of the world on TV "news" shows talk about a Bush Administration reality that doesn't exist except in the mind of the revisionists. They lie without compunction or shame. That's what we KNOW about right now. What don't we know about that happened decades or centuries ago?   When I was a kid the Indians were always the bad guys. Later on we find it is the whites who are the bad guys. Whites made treaties with Indians and broke them. Who took over land not belonging to them and murdered to do so?  What else did we learn that was completely a**-backwards MrWitch? Missionaries who brought "religion" to  many places also brought disease and death. You don't often read about all the bad they did. Where does the truth reside? I thought a fact was a fact. But if a fact varies according to who is doing the telling how can we ever rely on it? Then we are all doomed to live out our lives in abject ignorance believing as truth that which is a baldfaced lie.  Maybe I got up from the wrong side of the bed today. I dunno. If I can't KNOW what truth is absolutely what is our basis for moving forward? Thank you for your thoughtful and information-filled reply and Happy 4th of July Monday! I know you don't celebrate it! :)

It's done constantly. The history books we used in elementary school were phased out when I was in the 4th grade. New history books were provided, and all the parts about the Indians had been removed. Most of the history of WWII had been altered.

Oh my gosh rolle! Nothing sells like ignorance and manipulation in America. I wonder if that problem exists worldwide? I expect it probably does. Oh my gosh.  How do you fight THAT? Thank you for your reply. A very sad one. Not your fault.