Some People Said: History Is Interpretive. Do You Agree?

I think that everyone will have inaccurate accounts when he or she is writing history. Sometime they misjudge the historical event, lack information, or lie because they want to write propaganda rather than history.
However, I don't agree. those that abuse their power to write history and claim something like "history is interpretive" or "history is fictional". If history is interpretive, and everyone can has the "right" to interpret the way they want, can you "interpret" certain historical tragedy has never happened?

How do you think? I want to hear from anyone that likes history.
InFiDeL0020 InFiDeL0020
31-35, M
1 Response Jan 11, 2013

I believe their is a component to history that is interpretive. There is always an element of subjectivity in selecting facts. And then the facts must be interpreted in the larger context. Was Abraham Lincoln the Great emancipator or a racist who only used blacks to further his agenda? One could use the same set of facts to make both cases.

For me, the "significance" of historical events are interpretive, but the events themselves are not.
For instance, Americans may say Abraham Lincoln as the Great Emancipator or the War Criminal, but it is more important to ask "what Mr. Lincoln has done", and "how his policies impact us today." I don't deny that Mr. Lincoln has written a very bad check when the slavery was abolished.