what is history, but a fable agreed upon:)

History is a subject we have been learning in school ever since we reached that stage of understanding what “past” is. Reading about what happened million of years before we were born astounds us, and interests us. History recreates the significant events that took place in the past; be it a war, a movement, an assassination or a person who contributed to changing the world or at least affecting it in some way or the other. While studying about history in class, one quote that struck me, said by Napoleon Bonaparte, is “What is history, but a fable agreed upon”. This gave me a chance to think, as I have viewed history with only one perspective, and that is that all that I have read is entirely true and un biased. The facts presented to us are no different from what they were at that time, but what we fail to consider is that the authors writing the text books, are under pressure of the higher authorities and the history they write should be appealing and not against a particular sect of society or country. This level of pressure must have always remained and what is passed on to us is some what fabricated. Although it is passed on through generations, it is obviously an account of someone’s memory, as someone has to start it. There has to be a person who has witnessed the event that took place, or lived during that era and memory cannot be trusted upon entirely because consciously or subconsciously it absorbs what actually appeals to it. Similarly, history, in which memory plays a crucial role, is an account of what is appealing to a particular section or country, and at some level, is selective. It cannot be termed as a fable, as there is evidence that certain events did take place; but if thought, it is a story, an account but agreed upon by generations, historians, and supported by evidence. While reflecting upon this quote, I put myself in this situation to understand it better. If I write an account of an incident that took place, and generations read and agree upon it, as I have backed it up with evidence it is similar to history although it is not as the event that took place is of no importance to anyone in this world accept for me, but it has been agreed upon and thus that it how history actually is. One macro history is created by combining several micro histories and that is what is presented for us to read and learn. It is actually sort of a fable as it cannot be entirely relied upon, but the fact remains that we believe and agree to what we know. We agree upon the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a legendary President, but are unaware of the fact that he was a tyrannical racist. The first war of independence, the Vietnam War, WW1 and 2 are undoubtedly history but what is presented before us may not be entirely what it actually was, and there may be certain facts that may not be disclosed to us, for the mere sake of appealing some authority or presenting only what may be accepted. I have never thought about history to be untrue or facts that could be hidden, and learning about that has been interesting in its own. Calling history a fable is demeaning to the subject but if viewed or thought upon with another perspective, it is actually a story or account agreed upon.