History 1

First of all, it really is completely impossible for history to be completely objective, and for someone to expect this of history is ignorant and …well, stupid. Just like with any accident when witnesses are asked what happened, although they all saw exactly what took place, each retelling is going to sound a little bit different depending on the person. Does this mean that that accident is pointless or it never occurred because no one seems to know what happened? Of course not, this is to be expected of human beings, perspectives are different and actually this confirms it took place because so many people witnessed it. As for the winners part of her objection and in keeping with my analogy, the retelling of the story will be different if one of the witnesses was a close relative of the victim, their story would be full of emotion and sympathy and so on. If another witnesses, however, was one of a stranger or even one of the vengeful criminal's sidekicks, their story is probably going to sound a lot different, probably bitter, maybe even sarcasm and such. This is the same with history, depending on who witnessed it and then retold it, of course the retellings of the events, people and wars in history are each going to sound a little different, but that’s only because of the natural bias that people place (just like in my analogy). You can't take the bias out of the person and you cant (really) take the bias out of history. These miniscule differences and biases don’t change, generally speaking, any of the important content of events, dates and occurrences, so with that history is vitally important to any nation's success and should not be disregarded because someone's naïve idea that it isn't objective, because it never will be. Yes, attempts can be made but the simple fact of the matter is that whether or not it objectivity is attempted, history is needed and is written by both the winners, the losers and the observers who weren't involved.