should all history books be destroyed and forgotten?

[kloth]

I don't want to speak for lewisnotmiller, but it's pretty clear to me that he wasn't calling you ignorant. He was saying that if you had your wish then people would be ignorant of history, and that you think this is somehow a good thing. Anyway, saying someone is ignorant isn't necessarily an insult, for example I'm ignorant about Mexican poetry. All that means is that I know little or nothing about it.



People are usually more gullible about subjects that they are ignorant about. The huge problem that I have with your proposal for teaching history is that it strips away a lot of the need for source analysis and criticism by concentrating solely on events with video evidence. To make this worse, the reason you give for proposing this is that people are gullible and take things at face value!!! Can't you see the contradiction in this? How on earth are people going to be taught how to be critical and analytical when history classes involve showing youtube videos?

Real history is taking all the evidence, analysing it, then putting it together so it forms a coherent whole, it is asking and finding answers to questions that are not explicitly obvious. This is thinking for yourself, it's using criticism and logic whereas what you seem to be proposing is cynicism, which is merely destructive and not constructive as history should be. What you're proposing isn't even history.

As for your last comments, the other posters on this thread are showing the exact opposite of what you claim. The problem is that you haven't proven why people should show the same cynicism towards historical evidence as you show, mainly because you don't seem to know how much evidence there is or how many kinds of evidence there are. What you are proposing isn't in the slightest bit constructive, it's not informed, it's based entirely on the fear that people might lie about things and that evidence shouldn't be given any significance. In that case we may as well get rid of the justice system because it's based on the same procedures.

you're doing a pretty good job at speaking for someone when you don't want to.
and what? you don't mind people calling you ignorant? especially if you believe they are wrong?

anything that can be taught with books can be taught with video, except video you get a little or a lot more. you might be defending books because of the tradition and pride of old school, something a lot of people these days like to stand for 'old school ways'. if people want to read books to exercise their mind then read modern history or science books. I would imagine there is lots of history todays world missed out on that never made it to books from ancient times due to politics, we can live without it obviously like we could live without roman history, as well as future generations.

you talk about taking all evidence? but then claim a book is good enough. for all you know 95% of the roman history is fabricated to suit political needs from and for other people.

I gave plenty of evidence, but some people won't agree and not because they disagree but because they are afraid of change and don't want others to shed a new light on them unless it's a famous person doing it. and I think two people agreed with me pretty much, more so about what ancient history is worth.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

you're attempts to try and insult me with ignorance is bliss remarks tells me that you are not a mature person to habdle such debates, perhaps due to fear of change or throwing fits if proved wrong and making a stance of having to always be right. unless you want to say calling someone ignorant is not an insult, then i guess i could say the same for someone who is stupid, because stupidity happens. i never said nobody would care about history if it were not recorded, they would simply rely on it more that wriitings, i am sure you understand that, but it sounds like you are throwing a tantrum.

:spit:

C'mon, man...you have GOT to be doing this on purpose, right? On the off chance this isn't some misguided attempt at ****-taking on your part, I'll grant you the benefit of an honest explanation of the post you have so COMPLETELY misconstrued.

In your self-confessed aim to destroy history books, and stop teaching all history pre-video era to anyone, you would be introducing a state of ignorance to people in terms of their historical knowledge. Some people, of course, ALREADY are ignorant of history, but this is not due to deliberate policy.

I don't believe ignorance is bliss. I don't think avoiding the topic of history, and keeping people ignorant of it is beneficial to them in the least sense.

Quite APART from that, you seem to be (ironically) ignorant of the meaning of ignorance. Ignorant is not, when used correctly, an insult. I am ignorant of the history of the indigenous populations in Japan, for example. You would render people ignorant of history. This is, in actual fact, simple use of the English language.

It is NOT an insult. An insult would be if I said something like 'Your lack of ability to comprehend and respond simply to clear and unambiguous posts has led me to conclude you're either trolling or incapable of any sort of sophisticated debate.'

reading skils don't matter when it comes to reality. just because you can read well doesn't mean the story is fact. bottom line is i believe that most (not all) people are gullible and systematic and believe what they are fed. look how many people are against what i say here as opposed to not, most people don't think for themself and are happy to follow because it's more safe and they want to belong.

My goodness. If you're going to argue against something, you should make sure you know what you're arguing against. The points you make here are completely SUPPORTIVE of my position. I can only conclude you either have a deep-seated need to be contrary, or are ignorant of the meaning of 'critical reading'.

In case it's the latter, please consider the following definition;

Critical reading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thana]

we do learn from failures of history, and so what? we still repeat the same ole down fails over and over time again when we know better. so keeping old history books around for that reason is not valid at all to me. as far as religious history, that doesn't concern me no offense to anyone. i don't think religious is doing much good these days, and maybe never has. but that's from my experience and opinion.
i am not saying to bring down buildings or to destroy science books, just history books. you don't have to break down a building because the history on it is gone.
you can say you have a Phd. it's just from my experience in debates on forums i just notice everyone always brings up they have a Phd, degree, masters, etc. in the same exact subject at hand or close to it, which seems odd, but maybe it's true. whatever.

by conditioning, i mean at school, on tv, from their parents and what their parents were taught. i come across people who often have never thought of or had brought to attention of an alternate possible theory. some history might be true, but without knowing for sure then it's worthless to me, especially when people don't better themself from learning about history at all.

i think we would have a better chance of making people not so ignorant and to better themselves, is by teaching them history that stands more ground. the romans history almost seems like a fairy tale to me, that's why i would say things like that should not be taught in school. being taught with books is good/better so long as there is video footage from that era to go with it. other wise it's like reading up on ole saint nick.


people are still going to come up with theories of ancient history, but at least without history books as such, they won't be convinced like how people are with history books and believing everything it says 100%. like how mankind got it's start on earth, from what i seen most people are not convinced how it started.

i'm not saying youtube is 100% accurate with their footage, but way more than just reading a book and having that as your only resource. like with the manson killings, as interested as people are about that case, imagine if we only had books to go by and not interviews from video of the actual people involved. if we only had books on that case then i would bet that a 100 years after that crime, some people would really start to believe manson was the son of man after twisting it a little. the human mind is easy, easier than they care to admit, especially the masses.

as far as the media and their video footage. i would say it's more creditable than someone who just shot it with their home camera. nothing is 100% solid in making sure it's all facts, but video helps make things more convincing, people can still lie.
but books from 500 years ago that have been rewrote time again, and the only proof is from that book has most people convinced of how all kinds of history.
as much as i would like to believe people have more common sense than that, they don't, most people believe in and are proud to be following drones.
that's my opinion at least. take it for what it's worth to you.

You're trolling right, You have to be trolling.
:thud:

 

[OlafTheHairy]

you're doing a pretty good job at speaking for someone when you don't want to.
and what? you don't mind people calling you ignorant? especially if you believe they are wrong?

I wasn't speaking for him, I made that obvious when I added 'it's pretty clear to me'. I didn't believe that lewisnotmiller was calling you ignorant in the first place so your other point about it being an insult to you is irrelevant. He's also made that pretty clear since then.

anything that can be taught with books can be taught with video, except video you get a little or a lot more. you might be defending books because of the tradition and pride of old school, something a lot of people these days like to stand for 'old school ways'. if people want to read books to exercise their mind then read modern history or science books. I would imagine there is lots of history todays world missed out on that never made it to books from ancient times due to politics, we can live without it obviously like we could live without roman history, as well as future generations.

There's little to say about this paragraph because it's all based on the false supposition that I'm defending books and reading, I'm not, I'm defending history.

you talk about taking all evidence? but then claim a book is good enough. for all you know 95% of the roman history is fabricated to suit political needs from and for other people.

Again, another misrepresentation of what I'm saying, that's the third one in your last post alone! I never said that a book is good enough, I've made the opposite point that there is a ton of evidence for Roman history (not just literary) but you continually choose to ignore this point and instead concentrate on a strawman argument (that history is taken from one book, read uncritically). Also, please answer this question, who is doing this fabricating of evidence? And I'm talking about evidence, so not teachers or parents.

I gave plenty of evidence, but some people won't agree and not because they disagree but because they are afraid of change and don't want others to shed a new light on them unless it's a famous person doing it. and I think two people agreed with me pretty much, more so about what ancient history is worth.

You've given no evidence, only cynicism, which doesn't shed new light on anything at all because as I said previously, cynicism is totally destructive rather than constructive. Your whole argument is based on the idea that the vast majority of historical evidence has been fabricated, despite the truly epic scale of work that this would require.

 

[kloth]

You're trolling right, You have to be trolling.
:thud:

i suspect trolls are the ones who often accuse everyone else of being one. especially when they don't have anything to say really, such as yourself. or especially if they don't agree with someone and are proved wrong, but don't wanna admit it.
lastly, keep in mind, this is a debate section. get out of the oven if you don't like the heat, ma'am.

I wasn't speaking for him, I made that obvious when I added 'it's pretty clear to me'. I didn't believe that lewisnotmiller was calling you ignorant in the first place so your other point about it being an insult to you is irrelevant. He's also made that pretty clear since then.



There's little to say about this paragraph because it's all based on the false supposition that I'm defending books and reading, I'm not, I'm defending history.



Again, another misrepresentation of what I'm saying, that's the third one in your last post alone! I never said that a book is good enough, I've made the opposite point that there is a ton of evidence for Roman history (not just literary) but you continually choose to ignore this point and instead concentrate on a strawman argument (that history is taken from one book, read uncritically). Also, please answer this question, who is doing this fabricating of evidence? And I'm talking about evidence, so not teachers or parents.



You've given no evidence, only cynicism, which doesn't shed new light on anything at all because as I said previously, cynicism is totally destructive rather than constructive. Your whole argument is based on the idea that the vast majority of historical evidence has been fabricated, despite the truly epic scale of work that this would require.

you're not speaking for him? but you answer a quote i directed toward him? okay.

i know you are defending a CERTAIN part of history. that's what this is ALL about. i also said you MIGHT be defending reading books, which means you also might not.

i never make a misrepresentation, because i know that is a common accusation people are looking for on forums. you simply didn't read the might word and are confused on what it means to speak for others.
to me, so far, i don't see enough evidence of the ramons to keep teaching about them. i understand when you said you have some doubt on their history, but what i keep saying is that we have zero proof/evidence that anything that is said about them is true. even if there are some artifacts around to look at in a museum or a building.

again, you are making the misrepresentation. i never said the vast majority of history HAS been fabricated, i clearly said it could be. my whole argument is to go with more modern history instead, that has more of a reliable source of video, and not just books. now don't push that statement to the far left or far right. so i don't have to repeat myself and say i am not looking to get rid of all history books, just ancient history ones.
thank you.

 

[OlafTheHairy]

you're not speaking for him? but you answer a quote i directed toward him? okay.

Am I not allowed to comment on other posts you make? I gave you my opinion on what he meant, and I turned out to be correct because I found his statement to be easy to comprehend.

i know you are defending a CERTAIN part of history. that's what this is ALL about. i also said you MIGHT be defending reading books, which means you also might not.

This certain part of history happens to include an era accounting for well over 90% of historical study, as well as history from the modern era which isn't on video. It also includes ALL historical research itself. I wasn't defending the reading of books alone, I thought that might have been implicit through posting in this thread.

i never make a misrepresentation, because i know that is a common accusation people are looking for on forums. you simply didn't read the might word and are confused on what it means to speak for others.
to me, so far, i don't see enough evidence of the ramons to keep teaching about them. i understand when you said you have some doubt on their history, but what i keep saying is that we have zero proof/evidence that anything that is said about them is true. even if there are some artifacts around to look at in a museum or a building.

Again, I was telling you what I thought he was saying. My language made that very clear and it is you who are confused.

Again, for what must be the third or fourth time, there is a TON of evidence for Roman history. If you can't find it then all that suggests to me is that you don't know where to look, are not interested in looking or are simply being argumentative. The argument that there isn't enough evidence is ridiculous to anyone who is familiar with it. There were historians of the age who wrote 'universal histories' that covered every year of Roman history up to their time, there were more specialised historians who concentrated on particular events, there were first-hand accounts of military expeditions (Caesar's being the most famous), there were biographers who covered the lives of famous statesmen, there are bucket-loads of political speeches (e.g. Cicero). There are all sorts of other pieces of literature which can be used for constructing history, for example Horace's satires which gives personal insights into private and public life in 1st century BC Rome. There is a huge wealth of epigraphic evidence ranging from little notes written at Vindolanda in England to Trajan's Column in Rome. There are countless ruins of temples, civic buildings, military installations and private buildings from the era stretching from Scotland to Iraq. There's whole range of archaeological evidence covering virtually every aspect of Roman life, even going as far as what Romans ate. There are entire towns preserved by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD. In Herculaneum (one of those 2 towns) there is a library with hundreds of carbonised scrolls still to be excavated and examined. Have I made my point clearly enough or are you still going to contend that there isn't enough evidence because there was no video?

again, you are making the misrepresentation. i never said the vast majority of history HAS been fabricated, i clearly said it could be. my whole argument is to go with more modern history instead, that has more of a reliable source of video, and not just books. now don't push that statement to the far left or far right. so i don't have to repeat myself and say i am not looking to get rid of all history books, just ancient history ones.
thank you.

No, you are saying that the risk of them being fabricated is too high to justify studying it, an idea which, given the range of evidence for Roman history ALONE, let alone the rest of ancient civilisations and let alone history after the 5th century AD, is utterly ludicrous to the point of sounding like a conspiracy theory. I'm going to ask you again, who do you think has been fabricating the evidence?

 

[educationalfun]

History has a role to play in getting us to understand ourselves so as to know where we are headed in the future. If you want to know about the role that history plays in our lives you might want to read more about it on this site that contains more information than any other I can think of. Wide reading material and lots of insights too, you might want to see what you can find there. easylearnreading.com

Regards
Daniele Wren

 

[lewisnotmiller]

*sighs*

Not this again...
Kloth, any chance of getting a response on post 82?

 

[kloth]

Am I not allowed to comment on other posts you make? I gave you my opinion on what he meant, and I turned out to be correct because I found his statement to be easy to comprehend.



This certain part of history happens to include an era accounting for well over 90% of historical study, as well as history from the modern era which isn't on video. It also includes ALL historical research itself. I wasn't defending the reading of books alone, I thought that might have been implicit through posting in this thread.



Again, I was telling you what I thought he was saying. My language made that very clear and it is you who are confused.

Again, for what must be the third or fourth time, there is a TON of evidence for Roman history. If you can't find it then all that suggests to me is that you don't know where to look, are not interested in looking or are simply being argumentative. The argument that there isn't enough evidence is ridiculous to anyone who is familiar with it. There were historians of the age who wrote 'universal histories' that covered every year of Roman history up to their time, there were more specialised historians who concentrated on particular events, there were first-hand accounts of military expeditions (Caesar's being the most famous), there were biographers who covered the lives of famous statesmen, there are bucket-loads of political speeches (e.g. Cicero). There are all sorts of other pieces of literature which can be used for constructing history, for example Horace's satires which gives personal insights into private and public life in 1st century BC Rome. There is a huge wealth of epigraphic evidence ranging from little notes written at Vindolanda in England to Trajan's Column in Rome. There are countless ruins of temples, civic buildings, military installations and private buildings from the era stretching from Scotland to Iraq. There's whole range of archaeological evidence covering virtually every aspect of Roman life, even going as far as what Romans ate. There are entire towns preserved by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD. In Herculaneum (one of those 2 towns) there is a library with hundreds of carbonised scrolls still to be excavated and examined. Have I made my point clearly enough or are you still going to contend that there isn't enough evidence because there was no video?



No, you are saying that the risk of them being fabricated is too high to justify studying it, an idea which, given the range of evidence for Roman history ALONE, let alone the rest of ancient civilisations and let alone history after the 5th century AD, is utterly ludicrous to the point of sounding like a conspiracy theory. I'm going to ask you again, who do you think has been fabricating the evidence?

it's not about what posts you reply on, it's about speaking for others then not just admitting it. :beach:

not sure where you get that 90% statistic from. but I know what you were talking about in this thread. I tend to stay very focused on serious subjects of debate when the world is watching. in case promising very young people are watching, and they only have stupid people in their life outside the net, who might try and shed light on this topic at hand.

I know what you are saying, i'm just not buying it, at least not yet. I think you might be getting frustrated at the fact that you can't prove me wrong. some may be a matter of opinion though.
your proof of the Ramón's probably is not good enough for me, my mind is not easy when it comes to hear say. some people just need to hear evidence from anyone, I need way more than that, often there is no conclusion because rock solid evidence is not available, but peoples hope will live.

 

[kloth]

History has a role to play in getting us to understand ourselves so as to know where we are headed in the future. If you want to know about the role that history plays in our lives you might want to read more about it on this site that contains more information than any other I can think of. Wide reading material and lots of insights too, you might want to see what you can find there. easylearnreading.com

Regards
Daniele Wren

we understand ourselves all we need to know by now, life doesn't have to be that complicated for the average schmoe. as much as we do understand ourselves, we still make the same mistakes knowing better. besides technology, what has society learned and now is doing better with from mistakes we made and learned from our past?

*sighs*

Not this again...
Kloth, any chance of getting a response on post 82?

you could always just ignore a thread, being there are others to choose from.
my replies are not numbered, so i'm not sure where number 82 is for sure. that's one thing I am not sure of.

 

[McBell]

... we still make the same mistakes knowing better.....

yet you want to delete all history that is not on video?
How are we supposed to learn from history if we have an extremely limited history to learn from?

 

[kloth]

... we still make the same mistakes knowing better.....

yet you want to delete all history that is not on video?
How are we supposed to learn from history if we have an extremely limited history to learn from?

the question you ask was in the reply you quoted from me in text.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The point I was trying make is that my last post (# 82) wasn't responded to. All posts are numbered, top right (ie. where the frubals button resides)

 

[kloth]

:spit:

C'mon, man...you have GOT to be doing this on purpose, right? On the off chance this isn't some misguided attempt at ****-taking on your part, I'll grant you the benefit of an honest explanation of the post you have so COMPLETELY misconstrued.

In your self-confessed aim to destroy history books, and stop teaching all history pre-video era to anyone, you would be introducing a state of ignorance to people in terms of their historical knowledge. Some people, of course, ALREADY are ignorant of history, but this is not due to deliberate policy.

I don't believe ignorance is bliss. I don't think avoiding the topic of history, and keeping people ignorant of it is beneficial to them in the least sense.

Quite APART from that, you seem to be (ironically) ignorant of the meaning of ignorance. Ignorant is not, when used correctly, an insult. I am ignorant of the history of the indigenous populations in Japan, for example. You would render people ignorant of history. This is, in actual fact, simple use of the English language.

It is NOT an insult. An insult would be if I said something like 'Your lack of ability to comprehend and respond simply to clear and unambiguous posts has led me to conclude you're either trolling or incapable of any sort of sophisticated debate.'



My goodness. If you're going to argue against something, you should make sure you know what you're arguing against. The points you make here are completely SUPPORTIVE of my position. I can only conclude you either have a deep-seated need to be contrary, or are ignorant of the meaning of 'critical reading'.

In case it's the latter, please consider the following definition;

Critical reading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point I was trying make is that my last post (# 82) wasn't responded to. All posts are numbered, top right (ie. where the frubals button resides)

the numbers to posts don't show up in reply mode. now I know.

as for a subject like this, some people might have to read the entire thread to get my point of view, as to where i don't always answer the same question by different people.
when it comes to being ignorant of history, there's tons and tones of history we all missed out on that was not documented at all, and now long forgotten, but it ain't stopping the world from turning.

what piece of ancient history do we have documented now that we can not live without?
what piece of ancient history has taught us better, that we live by now and since then?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

the numbers to posts don't show up in reply mode. now I know.

No sweat.

as for a subject like this, some people might have to read the entire thread to get my point of view, as to where i don't always answer the same question by different people.

I've read the entire thread as it's progressed, for what it's worth. But I think you're disassembling. You simply restate your point of view, unchanged, without often addressing dissenting points. It's hardly a compelling way to argue your case.

when it comes to being ignorant of history, there's tons and tones of history we all missed out on that was not documented at all, and now long forgotten, but it ain't stopping the world from turning.

Don't you think you could remove the word 'history' and insert 'theology'? Or 'philosophy'? 'Art'? How about 'Science'? Where is the line that separates things that stop the world turning from those that don't? There is no line, this point of view is a fallacy. No-one claimed ignorance of history would stop the world turning, even metaphorically. Knowledge is where you find it. If you don't think there's knowledge in history, then ignore it. But that's NOT what you're arguing here. You're arguing that we should keep OTHERS ignorant of history. And have offered not the least justification for this, apart from a mistaken belief that video is more accurate, and that written history can be manipulated, and therefore is of no use.

what piece of ancient history do we have documented now that we can not live without?

That we can't live without? Nothing, from the top of my head, and assuming a tight definition of ancient history. Which has no relationship with the OP, nor relevance with the topic at hand, to be honest.

what piece of ancient history has taught us better, that we live by now and since then?

Like I said, feel free to keep yourself ignorant of history, and learn nothing from those that came before. I have no issue with that at all. My issue is that you're suggesting to keep others ignorant, without any justification.
Why, by the way, have you now tweaked your comments to relate to 'ancient history'? That hadn't been your take until now.

 

[Sonofason]

I don't mind hearing history, I never assume that what I am hearing is true or false. I'm happy if I can hear different views of the matter and make my own determinations with regard to what I will believe is true.

 

[OlafTheHairy]

not sure where you get that 90% statistic from.

It's not a statistic but an estimate. I doubt any study has been done to find the proportion of 'video-era' history compared to the opposite, but considering video evidence would be pretty scant before WWII I think the estimate would be fairly accurate.

I know what you are saying, i'm just not buying it, at least not yet. I think you might be getting frustrated at the fact that you can't prove me wrong. some may be a matter of opinion though.

Your arguments so far have been destroyed, especially your main argument that people are better off completely ignorant about the past...you haven't challenged the idea that people without any knowledge would be far more susceptible to propaganda than those who have some. You were also wrong in saying that people wouldn't miss history if it was gone, the existence and popularity of history itself is proof of that.

your proof of the Ramón's probably is not good enough for me, my mind is not easy when it comes to hear say. some people just need to hear evidence from anyone, I need way more than that, often there is no conclusion because rock solid evidence is not available, but peoples hope will live.

Of course it is not good enough for you, you've already made up your mind on the matter...why else would you have come to the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence for the Romans in the first place? Let's face it, your reasons for thinking this are not the result of actual research or even consideration, but of cynicism. An attitude of automatic, baseless distrust of sources is every bit as closed minded as someone who trusts sources without question.

Also, historians don't simply look for evidence from anyone. There is evidence considered to be reliable and evidence that is not, this is for the historian to decide. The important point to make is that evidence is never considered in isolation but in context, in context of what we already know of the period, what we know of the writer (if it is written), and of the other evidence. If a piece of evidence genuinely exists in isolation then there is little that be taken from it with reliability.

Another point that should be made is that history isn't simply a study of who won which battle, who gained power or who achieved great things, there are many, many areas of history which aren't even that susceptible to bias and are quite mundane...for example the day-to-day workings of government (not politics), different aspects of social history that look into everyday life (rites of passage, education, the role of women, slavery etc.), also aspects of economic history and the history of art, thought and science.

 

[Manna]

1. we have no proof how history really went down. how many people have rewrote history books for their own personal needs in the past? what proof do we have that the original documents are 100% factual?

This is a fair point. I remember reading that Heraclitus, due to his bias, talked about the Persians as if they were savages and brutes. This of course was due to his bias. The fact that history is so subjective and prone to bias suggests that maybe it is indeed not reliable.

However, I don't know if we should burn books. Some information of the past is better than no information. Thus the best option might be to simply acknowledge the bias and possible inaccuracy of history rather than to destroy it.

 

[Manna]

I also agree with Monk of Reason's comment:

History is one of the most important subjects around.

I would have no hobby without history!

 

[OlafTheHairy]

This is a fair point. I remember reading that Heraclitus, due to his bias, talked about the Persians as if they were savages and brutes. This of course was due to his bias. The fact that history is so subjective and prone to bias suggests that maybe it is indeed not reliable.

It's true that a lot of bias exists in the historical record, if it didn't exist there would be no historians because the hard yards would already be done! This doesn't mean that getting to the truth is an impossible task. Heraclitus certainly has a very negative view of the Persians as do many Greeks of the period and afterwards and their image obviously suffers a lot as a result...but if we think about it, isn't it the case that his strong bias itself might be indicative of something that might also be of historical interest? Why does Heraclitus feel this way? Putting it into context with other evidence, and not just Greek writing, can tell us why. We don't have to concentrate on whether Persians were savages or not simply because this is what Heraclitus and other Greeks focus on.

However, I don't know if we should burn books. Some information of the past is better than no information. Thus the best option might be to simply acknowledge the bias and possible inaccuracy of history rather than to destroy it.

Exactly!