10/02/2025
There is a reason we are still working on Ancient History after 4 years. Discoveries happen. Data Changes. Social norms change and so perspective changes. We have come to the conclusion that we will just need to updae every 4 years.
No trained historian uses the term “real history”.
Why? Because there is no such thing.
Let’s break this down for the new people:
The past, and history, are different concepts.
The past is what actually happened:
✔️the date and location of a battle
✔️the accomplishments of an inventor
✔️the birth rate in America in 1910
The past includes historical events which are objectively factual and can be proven with sources.
History is something different.
History is the conclusions that historians make ABOUT the past.
It’s the way they tell the story of what happened.
History is the interpretation of facts about the past.
This is a very, very important distinction,
because if the past is what happened,
and history is how historians explain what happened, then—get ready for this—
HISTORY CAN CHANGE because the story is constantly being re-told by new storytellers.
And that’s a good thing, and here’s why:
1. Historians are a product of their time.
How they interpret the past says something about their own place along the human timeline.
Ex:
If a historian from 1895 (when the historical method in the US was forming into a more scientific methodology inspired by German universities) were to study a Civil War battle from 1862, they would have a very different interpretation than that of an American historian who analyzed the same exact battle in 1962. Why? Because the dominant historians in the US in 1895 were influenced by the Dunning School of historiography—an intellectual movement which has since been dismantled as inaccurate and, frankly, racist. And in 1962, the New Left historians were dominating many universities, and focusing largely on marginalized people, power and class struggles, and racial injustice. Their writings reflect their own cultural climate.
Same battle.
Different interpretations.
Neither are objectively neutral.
Both reflect the culture and values of their day.
2. New historical discoveries are constantly being made. These discoveries confirm, complicate, or cancel previous interpretations, and therefore new interpretations must be formed to make sense of this new information. While a history book from 1895 may be well-researched, it just won’t have the most current well of knowledge to draw from because historians have uncovered so much more in 2025.
3. Historians are trained in the historical method. They spend thousands of hours reading, researching, and writing using this rigorous process to analyze sources and contextualize their findings—which, once this analysis is complete, is then subject to the critical step of peer review. Professional historians take the entire process extremely seriously, as do their colleagues, and their mutual criticisms sharpen the integrity of the profession. Yet two historians may STILL come to different conclusions using the exact same historical facts, and then they will argue about it in scholarly articles, conferences, and—more entertainingly—even on social media.
This is why we need multiple story tellers: different angles and perspectives flesh out our understanding of the past.
All educated perspectives are “real”, and they add to a growing body of analysis, but none are 100% perfect. That’s why we need more analysis from more perspectives. And that’s exactly what historians do, and will always do.
When someone says they have the “real history” of something, not only are they demonstrating an ignorance of the entire field of history (and the basic definition of the WORD “history”), but they are claiming to have the only valid interpretation.
The only true and objective interpretation.
They are claiming to have mastered what centuries of historians have spent their lives attempting : perfect clarification from all angles, absolutely comprehensive archeological evidence, and a supernatural ability to see every cause and effect of a historical event, analyzed in context, without a speck of bias.
They are essentially claiming to be God.
As a historian, and a Christian, I have beef with this.
MAJOR beef (and I’m a vegetarian).
No, when someone claims to have “the real history”, what they’re doing is using polarizing and sensational language to entice likeminded people into a feast of propaganda—and ideological enemies into a battle of words.
They prey on the historically illiterate, manipulating them with a biased “interpretation” meant to scandalize or shock those genuinely looking for history resources or truth. They confirm the unscholarly and unscientific beliefs of people who would rather take someone else’s word for it than spend any time with primary sources and critical thinking.
It’s….infuriating.
Someone once told me my posts are too long for the average person, and that no one wants to think that deeply on Facebook: it only made me write longer ones, because I’m not looking for average here.
I’m looking for people who care about the discipline of history, who are cultivating a posture of humility towards the past, and who are not afraid of information.
I’m looking for people who look at all perspectives, think critically about their findings, and aren’t too proud to admit their own biases or when they’re wrong.
I know you’re out there.
