Is This History

Jeremy Keeshin Is This US History? At first glance this seems like a rather simple question. Of course this is United States history. Considering that history is just a story or narrative of some type, this chapter fits that exact description.

It is story of how many Indians were brutally

murdered so Columbus and other Europeans could take their land. Coincidentally, it is also the same story of how Columbus heroically discovered America. History in this sense is paradoxical. Ideal history should be concrete with the objective report of the facts. It is astounding that de facto history can produce radically different accounts of the same exact story. This document is from a viewpoint that is not the norm, siding with the victims of the European conquest of America. History remains history if those who are the recipients believe it and pass it on to the subsequent receivers of history. The judge who determines whether or not this is legitimate history is just a judge of the liability of the source. If we all thought the most compulsive liar was the decisive source on World War I history, then we would be studying history, but it would just be inaccurate. Usually the scholars are accepted as the standard on what happened. But what if they’re wrong? This question is not typically asked. This is the point that this piece explores: you are getting a story when you hear history, but whether or not you get a complete and impartial one is up for one to decide. Any history will have a bias. But the enduring history will be the one with just the right type of bias for people to accept. It might not be the “truest” or “best” per se. The best history arguably is not a single history, but a compilation of many. The theme seems to be that there’s no right answer to history just like there’s no right answer to this question (besides mine). So is this US history? Maybe.