Is a historical event always true?

Answer 1

The 'truth' is one historian's version of history. Let me explain further by example. Yesterday, a friend, John, and I witnessed an accident between a truck and a car. The police took statements from John, me, the truck driver, and the driver of the car. Each of our 'historical accounts' of this event, now in the past, differ from each other's accounts of the same event. Only the truck driver saw the young child whom he tried to avoid hitting. The driver of the car was talking to her daughter and admitted to not paying attention to the road, but the truck hit her. John was facing me, so he never saw the truck coming down the road. I was facing John and saw the top of the truck, but John's body blocked the lower truck from my view. However, I did see a young mother pull her toddler son out of the way, where he had gone onto the street to get a ball that rolled away. The female driver of the car insists the truck driver is at fault. The young mother claims her son was "never in the street!!" The truck driver saw the child in the street; I saw the mother pull the child from the street. Whose account of the accident is 'correct'? Answer: ALL of the accounts are technically correct--from the perspective of each person and how much//how little they recount their story correctly. But that's why in the case of accidents we have police and 'accident reconstructionists', who tell US the "official" version of the historical event.

1. The question is not properly constructed to give an answer that is subject to an opinion, maybe. What the question could read is as follows. " Are historical events correctly documented by historians?"

2. The answer is that most major historical events are indeed correctly documented or other historians would have another version of the events. In that case, IF the event was a significant one, the other versions of it would be published as well.

3. The first part of the answer to this "impossible" question is totally suited to the Law and Public Issues category. It's a perfect answer to this: " Are eyewitness accounts of an event the best source of the truth?" It's a classical courtroom discussion and is discussed in Law Schools. The overwhelming answer is exactly what is shown in the answer above by the first responder.

4. Returning to part number 2. On a factual basis yes major, significant historical events are indeed correct. Examples: When did the US Civil War begin? OR

Was Julius Caesar murdered? When did the Russian Bolshevik Revolution take place?

Here are significant historical events that cannot be disputed. What is most important to know is "WHY" ..

Here we get into the philosophy or even bias of the historian. So "What started the US Civil War?" Was it the assumption that President elect Lincoln would abolish slavery? Was it a States Rights issue and/or did the leaders of the South had plans to carve out an empire in Mexico?

or

Why was Julius Caesar murdered?

Now another point is the philosophy of the historian... Karl Marx believed that history followed a scientifically proven path based solely on economics. He'll have an economic answer to Caesar and same with the Civil War.

If an historian is biased against "dictatorships" then his opinions regarding Julius Caesar will reflect that.

The same is true of world history, a country's history, etc. The versionS are written, studied, re-written and re-written, per "experts" vision of "what happened" and "what REALLY happened". First person accounts are given some weight-- but as well, first person accounts are also viewed with some suspicion; what benefits does Person A have in telling a story a certain way? Countries have a particular 'view' of events that differ from the citizens' views, EVEN different from First Person Accounts. Whose version is "right"-- policymakers and politicians, or people who were present? This is one reason we have so many "histories". Over time, one generally accepted account wins over / trumps all other accounts.