"History - is a matter of opinion"?

more tea an cakies plees trevs. i am not been ables to nom nom no cakies twoday yet.

and yes it am a mattur of opyun. as a feministical i am ables to dictates what parts of herstory me wants yung uns to knows about.

Most history books are a bunch of garbage. Information is missing and what not. I always go to the primary sources whenever possible and look up what he/she said or did. The older writings are usually in the spec collection at the library. Samuel Johnson is an interesting read.

History is also a matter of pov. I'm sure Germany's history books have a diff. spin on WWI and WWII.

I remember my elementary and high school history books had very slanted view points. They always seemed to paint America as the good guy in everything and vilify the enemy.

When I took a college course on history for the first time, I was shocked to hear from other view points. It made me cease to trust the "history" that is often put forward to me.

I now tend to look for more proof before I believe that someone's take on history is really true.

To some degree, yes. History itself is a fact, but the way it's presented may be a matter of opinion.

history books, documentaries and so on detailing recent history are primarily revisionist garbage that don't tend to jive with the accounts of those that actually lived it. The middle East is a good example. Can't imagine that the historical accounts detailing situations far back enough to no longer have living participants are much different.

History was written by the conquerors. Those who lost don't have the same representation in mainstream history books. Although with some digging you can often find their point of view too.

There is actually a science to studying and recording history.

There is a saying

"History is written by the winners."

ONLY if you are a Republican