I do believe there is a bit of inaccuracy

Almost certainly true. Every writer has a bias of some sort that creeps into his or her writing. Don't discount everything you read -- but hold it in memory to see how many times it's reinforced and how many times it's questioned. Most of the time, most of the things that most experts agree with is correct. From a mathematical approach read the previous sentence again and think about this equation (Less than all X less than all X less than all -- that's your degree of error in believing the things that you read.)

history is written by the person who writes it. theres definate inaccuracies written on person eyewitness accounts

Some History books are not accurate and many are liable to be biased in one direction or another. There are some books that are very well researched and as close to the facts as they can get.

History is what they WANT to teach you, same as anything else. Nobody 'teaches' anything unless they have an agenda.

I truly believe ultra liberals and atheists have distorted history and some science to their advantage. They know society can't be changed overnight so they had to start with the most impressionable in the form of "academia".

i think the history is right, its just the way its written is pointed in different directions

That's possible. Anyone can write down whatever they want and say that it's true. Nobody really knows what it's like to live in thsoe times. Anybody can make up lies.

Someone once said : "What is history but a fable agreed upon" I think that puts it into context:)+++++ ( i can't remember who said it)

history is always written by those who fared well in the event depicted. heroics form the other side are shown as terrisitic and rebbellous acts, slaughter and murder on the favored side is shown as bravery and determination. then glased over by being shown as "brilliant stratagies". confucious say: "war not answer who is right, war only decide who is left"

The first lesson I remember being taught in history class at high school was on the value of different types of information source. If the history book was written as an accurate account of a variety of high value information sources and using little of the writer, publisher or research funders bias then it is more likely to be accurate when compared to one written from little and poor value sources and edited with a social and or political agenda.] The same goes for any published information source, not just a history book.

Reported history almost always has a margin of error, but that's an awfully broad generalization to make. To compare the well-researched and annotated history of Imperial China, that I'm currently reading, with the Holocaust revisionist text I read a couple of weeks ago would be a grave error.

dates are incontrovertible, as are occurrences, but the interpretation of data is always the problem. Every historian aproaches his work from a certain angle. It is always useful to try and work out the world view of any author when reading history. That is why, in the end, it is very useful to go to the source documents, the raw data on any subject, rather than rely soley on a secondary or tertiary source such as a "history book".

Whoever said that must be an expert. He must have been there and seen what really happened. In that case, he should rewrite the history books.

Some are not entirely correct but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. One textbook by one author does not make a complete history but it's a part of the story. All of the historical evidence is not in and what evidence is in my not be translated yet. History is constantly unfolding. There are different perspectives for each event. A police officer investigating a traffic accident questioned four witness to the accident. One witness was standing on each of the four corners of the intersection. The police officer took down four different accounts of the accident. I know of one historical event that was generally accepted because of its portrail in a movie. Then a diary was found that presented the event from another perspective with new details. Then someone wrote a book disputing the diary and raised some good questions challenging it's authenticity. Then a third book with some new evidence supporting the diaries record of the event without offering any real specifics is availible, so, who know's? His diary and papers were accessable but because of his place in history he was ignored. His papers however have opened new doors for investigation in another country possibly altering the perspective of some of its historical figures. Some history just needs to be verified. One diary was never taken seriously because of the authors place in history. Someone verified the diary with historicl artifacts. Now that persons place in history and why he did what he did is being revisited. Sit back with a cup of tea, relax and wait for the next book, unless you're up to rummaging through some dusty old papers looking for yourself.

Every author must select their resources and sometimes they make errors. Still some authors are actively trying to change the view point of certain events. This may well be a valid way to write a history book as evidenced in some of the varied answers on this site. A PLUS for me is the internet. It gives a student of history or any subject many more resources than even a library. One must be prepared to believe something new or even question every thing available. To paraphrase Mulder, the truth may NOT be out there... yet.

I think there's a wide range of history books. Some are more credible than others. Some are closer to the "truth" than others. THere are facts - and there are interpretations of the facts. Five people - even if they all agreed on those facts (and they may not) - when assessing what they mean - could very well write five different historical accounts. In genre, history books are NON FICTION .. so based on facts. From there, we have to look to the credentials of the author/researcher and to their ability to communicate what they've found to us. It's also important that it be spelled out which is "factual event" vs "interpretation". I have no problem with different interpretations. That's one of the good things about any intellectual endeavor. Bring the source evidence and facts - then put the brightest minds on it. Then have all TALK. The result will move everyone that much closer to understanding what "really" happened or what it "really" meant. Unlike many of the history books I read when I was a child, I appreciate a history book that shows ME the evidence then takes me on the journey .. telling me HOW they decided what it all meant. That way, I can take the same journey and make up my own mind. Short answer: like any other genre, history books come in a wide range .. from terrible to balanced and wonderful.

I read a book years ago called LIes my Teacher told Me. since then I have looked for historical accounts backed by journals and diaries of people who were there.

i think that it depends. history books were writtn by people, and people whoever they are tend to exagerate, and edit things. think for instance the last time you told a story, was it completly the truth? or did you add and change things every now and then. it is a habit that we have got into. so i think that history books are accurate, but it depends from which view you are looking from! obviously someone that wrote a history book, is going to want it to be in favor of them! you wouldnt write about the time you got so scared you started to cry if you were renowned for being a tough person would you? so anyway that is my thought! lol =)

That's probably an accurate statement. I don't know how wrong they are, but they are written by people and people can be biased, or even just get facts wrong. Not to mention that war history is written through the eyes of the victors.

I think i want to goto other countries and see what their history books say about America and see what ours says about theirs...

I know that here in the uk the English history books have some of the Scottish characters as 'the bad guys', and vice versa... so who knows... :D

"The" history books. Do you know that there are millions of "the" history books? Some are, some aren't.

History books are not global, and so, are from the POV of the author (who is a citizen of someplace). History books also fall prey to dated info. Example: the science of archaeology changes so quickly that it is difficult for text books to remain up to date. Also, as times change, and perceptions, opinions about 'good and bad', right and wrong change too. I can not recall ever having read about European migrants to north america giving Native americans blankets infected with smallpox and diseases. But it is true - documentation exists to prove it.

History books (or any non-fiction book for that matter) is subjective to the views of the author. The author will have certain perceptions and agenda that that will determine what is written.

Wait...you mean Columbus didn't discover America? Well...I'll be jiggered.

History books are not accurate! Even Official Histories, which are based upon the greatest amount of documentation, records, primary sources and hard evidence (tens of thousands of pages of the stuff) are not accurate. History is subjective, it is created by a flawed person, for a reason. Very often we learn more about the person who writes the history, and who he or she is and what makes him or her tick than the period itself.

My feelings are best summed up by this excerpt from Wicked. We believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it - "history." A man's called a traitor - or liberator A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader? It's all in which label Is able to persist There are precious few at ease With moral ambiguities So we act as though they don't exist

Depends upon who wrote them, using what information, and how reliable their sources ultimately are. Witnesses are horribly unreliable, and 100 people watching the exact same event will likely have 120 different versions of what happened.