Khuutra said:
So are you just trying to downplay the evils of revisionist history by pointing out that it's been done before (though serious historians do their best to revise historical accounts rather than events or personages themselves) or are you going so far as to suggest that revisionist history is the natural and proper course? Or, God help me, are you suggesting that we had a better and more complete rendition of history decades/centuries ago than we do now? |
I am saying history is someones point of view. The reason the good guys have always won throughout history, is because the winners get to write the history books.
I care about someone using a history book to tell lies. I am not worried about someone using a history book to tell us the parts of history they want us to know.
That's what all history books are.