POLEMICS VS. HISTORY

Espousing a point of view of a historical event would appear to be a departure of belief in history as the word of god. Historians believe in the truth of the written word as substantiated by the factual evidence presented by the writing historian.

The flaws are many in the theory of practical history. The naiveté of history readers can be counted on, relied on, to continue the belief in the historical record of an event or period of time. Practical history presumes the existence of a bundle of facts laid out for the reader in sequence to give understanding and meaning to those past events. Another obvious flaw lies in the interest in the historian’s point of view of the events about which he or she writes. A third flaw lies in the distance of time or the magnitude of the event that prevents a true and accurate picture from being drawn for the present-day localized reader of past events. The winner or loser in the event being written of obviously presents problems of veracity or problems of acceptance of material as reliably factual or simply the facts made up by the winner/writer of the history. Skin color, ethnic or religious background, language, geographic location, localized or personal experience and knowledge, and so on, all affect the veracity of the written words of “history.” Thus history becomes his story.

If it is indeed his story, then history becomes a polemic for a point of view. It is my contention that ALL history is a polemic..