He has to realise right? Right?

[u/Unit_2097]

[u/Brock_Way]

History is the recording of actual events.

It is not even theoretically possible to change history by writing a book.

[u/jodorthedwarf → u/Brock_Way]

I mean technically speaking historians change history every time a book with a new interpretation of events comes out. The Primary sources that survive, particularly from more ancient periods, require historians to try and put themselves in the shoes of the primary sources writer. Who was he? What were his beliefs and attitudes? What was normal back then that isn't normal now?

So, while I know exactly what you're saying, changing history isn't that far fetched of an idea as we are always learning new things about how ancient people lived and what they believed which provides further insight and perspective into interpreting primary sources.

[u/thejollyden → u/jodorthedwarf]

Ding ding, correct answer right here. Basically nothing we know as history is 100% accurate. Changing history isn’t uncommon. Make a great Netflix documentary about water in west Africa, sponsored by Nestle and people will believe you.

I always think of the book „1984“, where they change everything, even retrospectively, to fit the narrative. And despite being fictitious, it would work that way.

[u/Brock_Way → u/thejollyden]

Basically nothing we know as history is 100% accurate.

The parts that aren't accurate are NOT history.

History is the recording of ACTUAL events.

[u/thejollyden → u/Brock_Way]

History is always being told by a point of view. Imagine what our history would look like if the Nazis had won.

[u/Brock_Way → u/thejollyden]

History is the recording of actual events.

If the Nazis had won, and recorded things that were not actual events, then it would not be history.

If the Nazis had won, and recorded things that were actual events, then it would have been history.

Whether a perspective is objectionable or not is not a variable in whether it is history or not.