# data[].attributes.body
Humanity hates the idea of unpredictability. It makes sense — the unknown can be terrifying, especially if the possibilities could be both good or bad. This leads to a behavior called determinism, where we predict the future based on current events or similar events in the past. This can be very helpful, especially in case of preparing for disaster, however sadly, as said in the reading, history and current events are entirely unpredictable. There are a multitude of factors in any given day and any given situation that could alter the course of events so severely that determinism is almost entirely possible.

# data[].attributes.body
I think what this is getting at is that you can only really get historical truth from artifacts and first-hand accounts, but in my opinion, even that doesn’t result in historical truth. The only way you can really have an accurate knowledge of historical events is if you were there yourself. Of course, that’s an overly technical definition, but the point is that historical truth is an artificial concept and that you can never really be too sure if the information you’re receiving is fabricated or not.

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t think historical truth is a real thing. When it comes to the people who experienced the event, every single person is going to have a slightly different and slightly untrue answer when they’re asked what happened, even if they all saw the exact same thing. Everyone after that who encounters that information and retells it also adds their bias and their interpretations and slowly the story gets distorted. By the time someone 100 years later hears about it, who really knows how true or how real those stories are.

# data[].attributes.body
Christopher Columbus is traditionally painted to be this glorified amazing hero, however the reality is that very few people bring more good to the world than bad, and Columbus is in no way one of those people. However all of his horrible and inhumane actions are glossed over — not necessarily omitted entirely but made light of and intentionally written to seem as if they don't matter. This is largely if not entirely because of racism.

# data[].attributes.body
Civilizations in general have a tendency to sweep over problems that require more effort than people would like. America does this to the extreme, which is why so many issues in our society, such as racism, continue to grow while being unadressed, until they become an irrepairable divide in our overall political climate and each of us as individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
“If a history book can be read as if it were a novel, and if a reader can find the same truth in a history book and a novel, what, finally, is the difference between them?”

This quote makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve never really understood how historians know the things they know, especially when it comes down to specific things someone supposedly said or incredibly detailed stories that happened 400 years ago. It’s also incredibly easy to misremember things or let bias affect the way you portray events, so even if it’s not intentional fabrication, false history happens all the time.

# data[].attributes.body
#2
People who write history can be heavily biased because of power. Such as kings, presidents, queen, and other people in power would request upon them being more favored later on in history. There's no such thing as fully unbiased history, there will always be unbias even if just subconscious.

# data[].attributes.body
The history of Christopher Columbus has been glorified to an extreme especially in the school systems. All of the terrible things he did have been brushed under the rug and masked with the good things he did. This is a really common thing that happens primarily if not only with white people in history, Columbus is just an easy example to refer to because his full story is now more widely known

# data[].attributes.body
Describing how is an act where you list the things that have happened or going through the events that lead up to something or explaining that something. To sum it up describing how is repeating/recapping steps taken to lead up to something. Explaining why is a more intimate process. You'd have to reflect on the topic for yourself and cough up an answer to maybe explain why things went down the way they did. You'd have to take a look at what happen and think "They did this, then that, but why would they do it?" Overall explaining why definitely takes more cognitive thinking than describing how.

# data[].attributes.body
As humans, we look for patterns. Whether it is math, biology or life itself, we look to the past in order to predict the future. While this often works well for math, when it comes to living things, it gets a whole lot more complicated. The behavior of humans is apt to change throughout their lives, and their opinions will often shift when given new pieces of information or when dealing with different emotions. When it comes to the future, the majority of humans have a belief that we will continue moving in a similar direction, while forgetting that it is actually them that influences it.

# data[].attributes.body
Why can't history be predicted?

I would say that historians use inaccurate and possibly biased historical records in their research. This knowledge can cause understanding holes and make it difficult for people to make accurate predictions about the past or the future.

# data[].attributes.body
“It is an iron rule of history that what looks inevitable in hindsight was far from obvious in the past,”

I liked this quote from the reading because it’s something that a lot of people experience everyday. Looking back at something you were stressed or worried about that you now know was bound to happen is a common occurrence for most. In history these inevitable things are usually bigger, but can also be small depending on the event or decision.

# data[].attributes.body
I think determinism is appealing because it requires very little to no complexity. Determinism shows that due to it's simplicity, it is safe to assume that an event may happen due to the current circumstances, because something close to what had happened, happened in a similar place in the past. Because of this, it can be easy to accept that it is the correct answer and continue without further question. Unfortunately however, this is not how history works. History is very unpredictable and Harari argues along with it. because the amount of possibilities that could happen throughout time, little changes could drastically alter the event of history, which is something that us humans have to live with; history cannot be predicted.

# data[].attributes.body
Explaining “How” is extremely different from explaining “why”. When explaining how something happened, the truth is based on fact and tangible evidence. Explaining “why” can be difficult to prove and verify because it could depend on constantly changing factors.

# data[].attributes.body
Why is determinism appealing?

Determinism is appealing because it can give you the most simple option, which requires little to no complexity or struggle. It is the safest option, and so it may be easy to accept that it is the answer and move on without any further contemplation. This concept, however appealing it may be, is not how history works. History is complex and multifaceted, and cannot be explained simply. History is also unpredictable, and even though everything would be easier if it were, we have to live with the fact that history is not as simple as we would prefer it to be.

# data[].attributes.body
4) History isn't something that can be predicted due to it being so random in a way. More often than not there are many possibilities and outcomes for what could happen next. Some we've thought of and some we don't know of. Either way there's a small you'd be able to completely predict it.

# data[].attributes.body
I like how the author is able to admit that things could be different, all because of people with power's opinion. It's interesting to think about what would happen if something big changed in history.

# data[].attributes.body
there is no way to capture all of history in an assumption. It is constantly changing and evolving and there are many sides to every situation. Describing how it happened can only say so much.

# data[].attributes.body
If history is impossible to predict then why study it?

history can help us in many ways we can learn from many important and inspiring texts written by people who are perhaps wiser than us. And these lessons from the past can help us with our own choices in the future and so that we don't make similar mistakes and can continue to strive and better the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 4 (kind of 5 too):
History is constantly changing and evolving, so, making predictions about it is pretty much impossible. It is shaped by the events, experiences, choices, and actions of people who are themselves continuously changing and evolving. Even the tiniest choice can have unanticipated or unintended results that alter the path of history in ways that are impossible to foresee. That is what makes studying history so fascinating and exciting, as it is always unpredictable and full of surprises. Even so, it is impossible to completely predict how history will turn out because no one can ever genuinely know how it will before it actually does.

# data[].attributes.body
This is significant because we are so used to a Eurocentric world, an example of this is during history we dont ever teach about the mass murder of Chinese civilians by the Japanese military (10-20 million deaths) because eurocentrism guides us in the direction of only focusing on the European part of WW2

# data[].attributes.body
Question 5:

History is unpredictabale because there is infinite possibilities of what could happen. We can make guesses, but more often than not we wont get it exactly right. It is still important to study history though, to help us make informed decisions in the current day, so that we dont repeat bad choices in history. Although we can't usually predict history, we can try to avoid certain outcomes with the correct knowledge. If that makes sense.

# data[].attributes.body
Why is determinism appealing?

Determinism is appealing because it is safe; Determinism explains that it can be safe to assume that an event will happen due to the current circumstances, and that it can also be safe to assume that an event will happen because something similar to it took place in a similar environment previously in time. Humanity is not fond of the unknown, and as the excerpt details, that fear of the unknown and unpredictability is why we have created countless amounts of religions and philosophies that exist to explain what we do not know.
Unfortunately, Harari argues that history is not deterministic; history is not predictable, therefore it is not completely safe to determine the certainty of the future. Due to the sheer amount of different forces and circumstances at play at any given moment in time, any small and seemingly unimportant subtlety can turn into a huge difference in outcome in seemingly no time, making history nearly impossible to predict.

# data[].attributes.body
This reading was very interesting to me. Harari explained how nothing is inevitable and there are so many components in the world that make it so difficult to ever predict the future. It’s intriguing to thinking about how literally anything could happen in the future and while we are experiencing it we could be the most clueless about what is even happening. While if people from say, 2050, look back on this time they could easily explain how everything lead to the other causing the outcome it did. If we think about the past, we tend to judge all the bad things that happened, but really they kind of had the least idea of what was happening. As things happened in the past we can now break them down and examine why or how these things happened, but in the present we don’t really have the time or the possibility to see how the future would play out before making decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the difference between describing "how" and explaining "why?"

"How" is a word that is used to ask about the process, method, or manner in which something occurs. In the text, it was explained that to describe "how" is to reconstruct events that led up to each other, by figuring out what the cause was and what the effect was of certain events, to see how we got from one point to another. To explain "why" is to connect events to each other to try to justify or make connections that explains why certain events happened. "Why" is used to ask about the reason, purpose, or cause behind an action, event, or situation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sapiens a brief history of humankind (Lola)

# data[].attributes.subject
Sapiens a brief history of humankind (Lola)

# data[].attributes.body
"In fact, the people who knew the period best -those alive at the time- were the most clueless of all."

It's just interesting to think about how we judge the actions of those in history, thinking we're smarter than them when in reality, they're really learning along with us but in real time. Take Pompeii for example. No one knew the volcano was going to erupt, so they needed to think quickly or just accept their fate I guess. In the heat of the moment, it's hard to even think about what to do next because you're so focused on the current situation. Those in history learn for us so we can better prepare, not necessarily look into the future, but if a volcano were to erupt maybe since we've evolved so much we'd know what to do because we know what not to do thanks to our past. I'm just talking at this point.

# data[].attributes.body
How is historical truth determined? Who gets to decide? Who is prevented from deciding? that is to say, who authorized knowledge?

The historical truth is largely influenced by the biases of historians and power dynamics within society. Historians do play a big role but are still not immune to subjectivity. The authority to authorize historical knowledge is largely held by dominant groups while marginalized voiced are generally excluded.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 5:

I think we tend to listen to facts that are more reflective of our own lives. Events that have a direct impact on our lives are more memorable.

# data[].attributes.body
question 2.

I think this is an interesting concept. Especially the part that says "In fact, the people who knew the period best--those alive at the time--were most clueless of all" In my opinion, this is because of multiple things, one of which is that the amount of time that has passed directly relates to the amount of thought that has been done on the subject. Another reason is that deeper historical knowledge reveals intricate factors, multiple causes, and contextual complexities, making it challenging to pinpoint a single explanation for events. Historical contingency and interpretive nuances further complicate the quest for a definitive reason why.

# data[].attributes.body
What I liked about this reading is the tone. The author seems to be pondering, wondering about the what could have been. I also appreciate the way they question the uncomfortable things. I liked when he said "The better you know a particular historical period, the harder it becomes to explain why things happened one way or another." It's an interesting quote, something you wouldn't think is true unless you saw it for yourself. This was a fun article to read, and it gave me a different perspective that I haven't ever thought about before.

# data[].attributes.body
“We study history not to know the future but to widen our horizons, to understand that our present situation is neither natural nor inevitable, and that we con-sequently have many more possibilities before us than we imagine.”

This quote stuck out to me because I think it's true that when we learn history the goal isn't to try and predict what might happen in the future, but to have a bigger understanding of the moment right now. We cannot calculate what will happen in the future, but we can understand that there are so many possibilities for our generation and our future.

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked reading this, it gave me a lot to think about. Harari is talking about the scientists who create a 100% correct revolution algorithm, and then the revolution didn't happen as they had predicted because Mubarak helped the citizens. I think that is so crazy because everything has an effect on everything, which is hard to comprehend.

# data[].attributes.body
This reading was really intriguing to me because it talks about something I've always wondered and thought about. It's overwhelming to think about the fact that not everything is inevitable, and even the smallest choices we make have an affect on the outcome of everything in our lives. This can be said about something as small as the condiment choice for you lunch, or as big as the choices our country have made during wars. I love how the author made it clear that nothing is inevitable, yet a lot of things are unavoidable.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the difference between describing how and explaining why?

Describing how is listing off the events that lead to the outcome but to explain why would lead to infection of bieas.  To image ourselves as someone we don't know and expect the same resoult to accuree is foolhardy. We know much of events but never enough of the people who lived them.

# data[].attributes.body
History cannot be predicted, because, quite simply, we cannot predict the future. We can't tell if something will happen prematurely. However, that doesn't mean we can't observe current events and make educated guesses. I like to think of this like a meteorologist looking at things like humidity and moisture levels to try to determine the weather.
Another thing I really liked is this quote in the excerpt:
"Every point in history is a crossroads. A single travelled road leads from the past to the present, but myriad paths

fork off into the future. Some of those paths are wider, smoother and better marked, and are thus more likely to be taken, but sometimes history - or the people who make history - takes unexpected turns."

# data[].attributes.body
One of the most interesting parts of the reading for me were the road analogies. Of all of these, the one I thought about the most was " those more informed about the period are much more cognizant of the roads less taken." In the text, it explains that this is meant to mean people who know more about a period have a harder time agreeing with one side or another of history. This is probably because since they have learned about both sides, over time they begin to empathize with parts of both sides arguments. What I found even more interesting, is that this quote can have another meaning; this is that people who know more about these times are more likely to agree with the less popular opinions. This is because these people are exposed to this information more in depth, whereas most of the population only learns about the highlights and don't really get to develop their own opinions. Therefore, I investigated this quote because of it's multiple interpretations.

# data[].attributes.body
I think what Hunt means it that you only get real POV's and real stories and real facts/artifacts from the remains of the historical events that occurred. The author is getting at the fact that only first-hand sources and material remains from the event can really help historians and people in general uncover the facts and the truths of what really happened or how the event went down from a real person or things point of view.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the difference between describing "how" and explaining "why'?

Describing how a series of events happened consists of using factual information already given to dissect the order of events that led to the final result. Explaining why something happened takes into consideration the personal perspectives, ideologies, and political motives behind any people involved. Doing this allows us to examine the histories that took place before the main event and the reasons why they would have influenced the end result.

# data[].attributes.body
So, if history is impossible to predict, why study it?

The importance of studying history even though it is impossible to predict is to have an understanding of what has happened, if there have been any patterns, and have a bigger understanding of the world.

It is important to know what has happened in the past because we can see if there have been past situations or events that have happened. Also to see that there are so many problems and the different ways people have dealt with them. How we can learn from our mistakes, move forward, and have a better understanding about the world around us.

# data[].attributes.body
If history is impossible to predict, why study it?

two reasons:
1. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it
2. The text itself has a reason: to widen our horizons

# data[].attributes.body
There is a big difference between explaining the 'how' and the 'why'. When explaining 'how', you are explaining the procession of events that led to the outcome. When explaining the 'why', then it becomes extremely difficult and often theoretical. The 'why' involves human nature and unpredictable and sometimes random designs, which in the context of history, means it is near-impossible to explain the 'why' something happened, and very easy to explain 'how' it happened.

# data[].attributes.body
This reading provides a very concise explanation for the faults of determinism, all I agree with, but I will add by saying what I think determinism leads to. If you believe everything throughout history, and therefore the present, is bound to happen, free will, and therefore your ability to change the course of history is a lot weaker if not completely gone. When people feel the future is bound to happen, apathy is inevitable, and apathy is an effective tool to keep change from happening. Determinism also narrows our insights into the future. If we believe no other possible futures were right around the corner back then, we'll be blind to those same corners in the present. Also, while it's not inevitable, I do think this line of thinking leads to the idea that history is over, which is a really dangerous one.
It's also really unfortunate that predicting and effectively fighting coming threats, will lead to most people thinking the threats weren't real in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
“The better you know a particular historical period, the harder it becomes to explain why things happened one way and not the other…. In fact, the people who knew the period best--those alive at the time--were most clueless of all”

I think when you know little about a period of time or event, you can make assumptions that lead to conclusions about why something happened this way rather than another. When you don't know all the details, your mind rationalizes the conclusion with the information it has, thus finding it easy to understand why something happened. So, the better you understand all the details of what was happening in a time period/event, it becomes more difficult to understand why things happened the way they did (especially if something completely out of left field transpired)

# data[].attributes.body
"No historian can completely recapture the past; we can only know the past through its remains"

This quote stood out to me because it demonstrates the value of real artifacts from the past, like written documents, photos, and narratives. I would say that the key components of historical knowledge are these remains. They serve as physical ties to the past, enabling historians to make an understanding of, interpret, and develop stories about, what happened in the past.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Hunt is conveying that we can't fully grasp all the perspectives of history into one fair statement. living through history may sound a bit goofy, but everyone is; in the future when a historian is looking back at our time, they won't be able to tell the full picture, but as we live through our current history, we can witness the full picture. the evidence that we produce about our history can try to tell the full story, but history can't be full as it is history.

# data[].attributes.body
"Ranke owned up to the partiality of his own view; he admitted that 'the intention of a historian depends on his viewpoint.' Yet he still hoped to convince readers of history to broaden their perspectives."

This quote made me think abut the last reading that we did, where it talked about the idea of personal bias. We learned that historians can emphasize certain points more than others depending on what they personally believe is true. Ranke admitted that a historian can have personal bias depending on how they view a situation.

# data[].attributes.body
question 1:

Since history is essentially a reflection of the people and their circumstances, it is very challenging to write history objectively and without bias. I think people can try to write without bias, but in reality it's pretty much impossible. The historian must constantly be aware of their own prejudices and assumptions in order to strive to remove them from their work. However, it is impossible to be totally impartial because the historian's experiences and beliefs will always color how they interpret history. The most crucial aspect of being a successful historian, however, is to give a thorough and accurate account of events from all angles and to present the facts in a way that enables the readers to establish their own opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
It is vital that we look at multiple peoples perceptions. when it comes to history otherwise everything can be dictated by one person's close minded view on the world and how it functions.

# data[].attributes.body
History as an art has been around for a long time, in every corner of the world. People know of its importance. They know that it can be used to lie or tell the truth, for power or simply for what it is, history. One would not take a poem of a maple tree and make it a spruce, for the essence of the very thing is lost. Of course, that can only be said for poets, those dedicated to the art and understanding of it. A historian, in turn, who is a historian for the purpose of history rather than the purpose of power, would make sure that all facts are as truthful as can be confirmed with known sources. If a person is more dedicated to their race, country or personal opinions than they are to history, as many are and few admit, they will tell history as they wish it to be told to themself, and lose the essence of said history entirely. It is hard to get perfect truth, but one must not dismiss such efforts.

# data[].attributes.body
2) I think she referring to the idea of how some pieces of history are lost to time in a way. Certain clues we could have about the past are possibly lost or destroyed. We have to use the information we have to make the best inferences about the past. There are bound the things we'll never have access to so there is only so much we can actually know.

# data[].attributes.body
Provisional truth is what we believe to be the truth but with the understanding that truth could change. In history things are constantly being uncovered and our perspectives and knowledge changing. However not everyone has a grasp on provisional truth meaning sometimes when things grow and change they get stuck on original information.

# data[].attributes.body
Its important to consider multiple perspectives and narratives when you're learning about history. This is because it is unlikely that you will have a full understanding of something when you only know about it through 1 persons perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah
- War Pigs by Black Sabbath

# data[].attributes.body
The best we can do is try to piece together common views on the situation to confirm what really happened. Obviously we can't go back but we can use what information is passed on to figure it out.

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter cements my belief that absolute truth, or 'true' history is not possible, and the idea is a way to form a master narrative, but truthful, or untruthful history do exist, and we should strive to achieve the most truthful history possible. What this chapter made me think about more is how this idea is also necessary to critique history. Having a standard to critique historical writing by, truth, specifically, an evidentiary and accuracy standard by which we determine truth, is needed if we want to analyze historical writing and its flaws.

# data[].attributes.body
History is fluid, as things will always change as new events arise and we learn more about past ones. History is dynamic, because it is always changing. History is influx, because new things will always happen.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 2:

I think she means that we can never have the full picture of history. The only way to be fully immersed and understanding of history is living through it while it becomes history. We can have videos, stories, books, or whatever other artifacts of the past, but history is only in its entirety when it’s not history.

# data[].attributes.body
"No historian can completely recapture the past; we can only know the past through its remains"

Much like these past readings we've done, after reading this, I feel like we dive deeper and deeper into the question of how do we know which part of history is real? Why do we trust history so much and why are we taught at a young age to believe there can really only be one story told one way? I feel like I'm going into a rabbit hole of either misinformation, lies, or distrust at this point... I don't know the answer and I'm not sure if I'll ever find it. Hopefully, we do.

# data[].attributes.body
#2 "we can only know the past through its remains"

There is always going to be many (most likely) clashing angles and perspectives when it comes to history, that's what makes it such a complicated matter. We can't fully know ever single bit of history so the best we can do is see all the perspectives and in our own personal mind piece them together to create a greater story.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why it matters ch. 2 reflection - maggie

# data[].attributes.subject
Why it matters ch. 2 reflection - maggie

# data[].attributes.body
2. What do you think Hunt means when she writes "we can only know the past through its remains" (44)?

As historians study history, they can only study what resources they have that document the past. It depends how far into history we go, but most of the time we study the past that we weren't apart of, and we can see how it lead us to the present. Writers only have what remains from the past to annotate it, and what we have from the past might not always be real or true. That kind of goes to the topic of if we can really even trust what people are telling us history is. If we only have limited resources and evidence, how do we fill the rest in, and how do we maintain facts. I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore, but I just find it so interesting how we can only know some things from the past by little tiny remains we have. There could be so much we don't know or didn't catch because there's nothing left of it. I don't know, I got way off track a bit. Sorry!

# data[].attributes.headline
History: Why it matters CH 2 pt2 reflection (Livy) 

# data[].attributes.subject
History: Why it matters CH 2 pt2 reflection (Livy) 

# data[].attributes.body
What do you think that Hunt means when she writes “We can only know the past through its remains?”

I think that she means that we can find out more in-depth about the past when there is physical evidence of something from the past that researchers and historians can study. For example, the Colosseum in Rome. It's a huge structure that was used for entertainment purposes like gladiator fights and shows how the people of Italy spent their time for fun.  Another example is world wars, in two different ways, one being the survivors who fought in wars and have a story to tell, and two the artifacts, objects, and items of value from those times.

# data[].attributes.body
9. "It is very hard to get distance on our own group and see the whole picture" (Hunt 59). In consideration of this point, how can we aspire to find distance and grasp a more complete picture? Is this possible? What are some actions that can be
taken to achieve a more nuanced and complex understanding of the past?

I think this is still on the topic of bias and how peoples biases are really strong that they are low-key blinded by other stuff around them. I don’t know how to describe it, but I think one thing that can help is going into stuff open minded even if you have a bias towards the thing staying open minded about the thing you’re doing or reading can help significantly.

# data[].attributes.body
“Even when a historical interpretation is based on true facts, is logically coherent, and as complete as a scholar can make it, the truth of that interpretation remains provisional. New facts can be discovered, and the benchmark for completeness shifts over time.”

this quote is really interesting to me because it talks about how even if a fact is being told and it’s as true as it gets, it can essentially completely change or have an expiration date when new facts around found or whatnot.

# data[].attributes.body
A connection I had with this reading is that how people with power can really influence history and what happens around you. This article does a good job explaining that influence is part of what makes history. It also can paint what is "good or bad".

# data[].attributes.body
prompt 1.

"Since the time of the Athenian historian Thucydides, ca. 430-400 BCE, scholars have routinely claimed to be more objective, that is more truthful, than their predecessors. They could make such claims because they could build on the labors of their predecessors."
I think this quote perfectly exemplifies how arrogant many historians are. When it says they believe themselves to be objectively more truthful than their predecessors, that really stood out to me. Do current historians really think that a few hundred years of history really make such a difference against the previous thousands or even millions of years of human history that their predecessors relied on?

# data[].attributes.body
What do you think is ideal history?

# data[].attributes.body
The one takeaway from this reading is that there was a lot of European influences throughout history. This text was hard for me to read because of the way it was worded. Most of the reading went right in one ear and out the other.

# data[].attributes.body
When Hunt writes "We can only know the past through its remains," she means that the only way we can know history is through accounts from the past, but the problem is that those are often very biased or the incomplete truth. So we have to piece together the truth (which is very likely inaccurate in some way) through corroboration of different sources written through different perspectives and cultures. It is only then that we can find the most accurate truth.

# data[].attributes.body
Eurocentrism is a serious issue with history as it is told today. This is concept of history being told in the favor of western more nations such as the US and Europe. This method is detrimental because it tends to exclude eastern nations from the wider known historical narrative, or when including these nations, tends to use bias when describing their histories.Eurocentrism is also negative because this causes the wider population to not have access to the histories of these countries and the ideas of Eurocentrism are further more passed on to further generations. Therefore, we need to break the cycle of Eurocentrism!

# data[].attributes.body
What do you think Hunt means when she writes “we can only know the past through its remains” (44)?

It is difficult to find truth in just one piece of historical writing, but when you look at the bigger picture, everything starts to become more clear. By using different fragmented pieces of stories, we can then come across the whole truth. Finding historical accuracy can be challenging in the hands of just one person, but if we tie together the remains of many different stories, we can start to figure out what really happened. I also think she means that even though stories can sometimes be inaccurate, actual remaining pieces of history cannot be ignored or denied, because that can help influence factual interpretations, and in turn, help to uncover the truth.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it possible to objectively write history, free of judgment and capture “how it really was” a la Leopold von Ranke’s aim (Hunt 43)?

Based on this quote, “All history, whether written, oral, pictorial, or performative, relies on narrative form, that is, a story that claims to represent the past through some kind of chronological device. (Page 4)” there will always be a perspective when someone writes about history. This is because you need someone to tell it in an order and that comes from someone’s perspective no matter what you are writing about. So there is no “how it really was” because everybody sees history from their different perspectives and the event or story could be filtered and changed based on what they remembered or said.

# data[].attributes.body
2. What do you think Hunt means when she writes "we can only know the past through its remains"?

I think she is trying to say that History is not something we can know entirely. No matter how many sources or perspectives you look at you will never get the whole story. The best we can do is try and piece together what is left because we have no way of going back and experiencing it firsthand. This could also be a way of saying that we can only see the past through what is reflected in the present.

# data[].attributes.body
How does power influence history and the writing of histories?

I would say that powerful people have the ability to rewrite history in order to support what they do, prove their trustworthiness, or promote a specific idea. This may include praising some individuals or events while criticizing others. Historians who are influenced by powerful influences could feel pressure to follow these stories.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe this section of the article was significant because the world has a general problem with only giving credit to the west, for example, in the Muslim world, historical truth is especially important. This can be seen in many examples such as the Quran or other traditions kept by people in the middle east for thousands of years.

# data[].attributes.body
How does the residue of beliefs of European superiority continue to influence history(ies) today?

During the height of European nationalism (late 18th-early 19th century) when the support behind European superiority was at its peak, European historians began to push the narrative of their countries' superiority in their writings. This sparked the Eurocentric model of history becoming the "norm" in historical writing, which is responsible for the Eurocentrism we see in society today. Western models of teaching history, most of which support the Western/European perspective of history, have been prioritized in most Western universities that teach students and scholars from all over the world. This weaving of Eurocentric ideas into Western academics has been present even in modern times, where the white perspective becomes the "norm" while other perspectives are labeled as the "other". This has caused racial and ethnic divides within Western civilizations, an increasing support in defending European colonialism, the pushing of European beauty standards, and plenty more effects that place the European perspective in the spotlight.

# data[].attributes.body
"Why do we care about some facts and not others? What influences our level of care?"

When a historian or even just an author is presented with a topic that they have very strong feelings about, they may emphasize one point more than another, to really try to convince you that this point is more important than the rest. While doing that, they may leave out important details relating to this event, therefore leading you to conclusions that may not be true, or cannot be proven.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I would probably define "historical truth" as the truth that is currently most believable almost. Said truth can change the moment something new is discovers but until then it's the theory that makes the most sense, so to most it'll probably be seen as true. The idea of there being multiple truths is something I can see in a way. I don't believe there is genuinely multiple truths but due to history being something that has to be interpreted more often than not, everyone may have their own ideas on what they believe is true, so in a way their own truths if that makes sense. Not really sure to describe it completely.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1. No, there cannot be multiple truths, there can be a narrative we believe to be the truth, but further evidence may prove it to be untrue, hopefully showing the real historical truth, but the narrative formed from this realization can also be a lie. This doesn't mean those former understands of the truth, ARE truth, they are false truths.

Question 3. For the most part. History is 'written'(as in, form a dominant narrative) by those allowed to write it and propagate it, which is very often only allowed when it conforms to what the government/ruling class want, if not directly written by them, and most alive to write history were on the victors side, but there are conditions where those who aren't victors get to write history, but not 'write' it.

# data[].attributes.body
History can be difficult to define, and knowing that the history you’re learning is untainted and based on fact alone is also not easy. People can interpret history differently and this effects how  historians expound information.

# data[].attributes.body
"The facts are shaped in fundamental fashion by those in charge; they decide what is worth recording"

I think it's important to have the perspectives of multiple individuals, especially when it comes to history. If the people in charge of recording history only chose to write what they think is memorable, then there's nothing really stopping them from leaving out important details. It's important to read history through the eyes of multiple people to get an idea of what actually happened, especially if you didn't live through the event in question. Looking at the bigger picture and taking into consideration experiences of others is crucial when writing factual history.

# data[].attributes.body
“Even facts are not as simple as they seem because the past is never settled.”

This quote stuck out to me a lot. People constantly argue about the past because it really never is for sure. Even if people were there firsthand there’s always different stories over what happened.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it possible to objectively write history free of judgment and capture “how it really was” a la Leopold von Ranke’s aim (Hunt 43)?

In short, no I don't think that's possible. Even if we try our hardest to suppress our biases and judgments, subconsciously and unintentionally they seep into our work. Also, capturing "how it really was" is a monumental and near-impossible task. You most likely are not going to write how it was in its entirety, you would probably write what parts you believe to be most important (unintentionally or intentionally); This is where our implicit biases and judgments come into play when we are trying not to have them.

# data[].attributes.body
This reading challenged a lot of what history is made to seem. I think that when Hunt said that our imaginations have been colonized was very interesting, and honestly I totally agree. Everything that we have been taught about has shifted the way we think whether we like to admit it or not.

# data[].attributes.body
"We can only know the past through its remains"

I believe Hunt was demonstrating the possible view of history. There are countless details trough the past that are lost to time. Historians must peace together "TRUTH" with whatever is left over. This perspective can be challenged with first hand perspectives but I guess they would count as remains of the past.

# data[].attributes.body
I think history is often written by the victor, to make them look better than they might be.

The story of Thanksgiving that is told to young children in school, is nowhere close to what actually happened. what we are told in stories, is that the settlers came to America, and befriended the native tribes that were near by, and learned how to survive. And to commemorate the bond between the native peoples and the settlers, they had a great feast and everyone was happy. What really happened was the settlers came to America, took advantage of the natives' hospitality, and then committed a genocide or forced the natives to do things for the settlers, and created their own civilization.

# data[].attributes.body
What we describe as history is largely influenced by paper source documents, most of which are possessed by the wealthy. If someone wins a war, they are able to then destroy such documents as they see fit, leaving room for only one narrative. History doesn't just write itself. Hands are constantly reaching for the pen that imprints their name into a paper that some other human shall come across years later. To rule completely, you must rule minds as well as bodies. Propaganda is not a modern invention, and even if us in the present know that some documents lie or exaggerate the truth, it is up to future historians to piece together the truth from these documents and their own interpretation. History lies, because people lie, so we can never know for certain whether something is true or not. Unraveling the layers of a past civilization is not so easy as understanding the layers of rock in a cliffside.

# data[].attributes.body
Why do we care about some facts and not others? What influences our level of care?

When certain individuals are presented with the task of attempting to explain historical events, they can tend to focus on one aspect of the story. This does not mean that they are twisting the truth, but rather that their own personal beliefs are clearly depicted in their retellings. If some part of the truth resonates with that individual, then they will consciously or unconsciously prioritize that piece of the story, rather than unbiasedly stating out the facts without any personal agenda getting in the way.

# data[].attributes.body
Is there really any way to know what and how it happened if you weren’t there? How can we be sure that what we are told is real?

# data[].attributes.body
The articles about christopher columbus portray that he was a hero and glorify the things he has done but leave out many other bad things he did. it makes him seem like a great guy but really he massacred many people and enslaved tens of thousands of people which lead to more deaths.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the way that we are taught about history has engraved the master narrative that europeans found the us when that’s not true, it was already settled by indigenous people.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like historical truth can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. There can always be multiple historical truths because there is always more than one side/interpretation to the story. All sides are valid and all sides are true (to the person who experienced the event). Historical truth generally means a consistent story that has been told for an event and has been normalized into everyone's brains for it to seem like that is what happened, There are many different POVs to historical events therefore making multiple historical truths because people that experienced the event are going to experience it differently/feel different from others (for the most part).

# data[].attributes.body
"A fact is inert until it is incorporated into an interpretation that gives it significance, and the power of an interpretation depends on its ability to make sense of the facts."

This quote is important because it reflects that history doesn't need to be simply one or the other: interpretation and facts are both needed in historical writing in order to make the writing have any effect. Although there have been plenty of arguments made by plenty of historians on one factor being more important than the other, the truth is that both are rendered completely useless without the inclusion of the other; in simpler terms, facts are dormant statements without an interpretation to move them in a direction, and interpretations are just hearsay until they have facts to back them up. History needs a healthy dose of both fact and interpretation to be of any significance, and with the exclusion of one or the other, it all becomes devoid of meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
4. Why do we care about some facts and not others? What influences are level of care?

For a writer or historian caring about certain facts more than others can support your story and what you're trying to say. It can make your reader focus on the point you're trying to get across instead of knowing everything about this one subject. As a normal person we likely focus on certain facts that interest us or align with our values and lose sight of the other facts. There are so many influences when it comes to caring for things more than others, the people around you, how or where you grew up, economic class, race, gender. Literally all these things can influence what someone chooses to care about.

# data[].attributes.body
Is history simply written by the victor?

It depends on the historical event. For example, the story of thanksgiving was told that the pilgrims had this huge celebration for finding land with the native americans, when they actually killed a lot of the people originally there. They made that story to make it look like they were the good guys instead of focusing on the fact that they stole their land. But what makes history HISTORY is having multiple different views and stories, so with the perspective of the ancestors of the native americans killed in the massacure, we hear their stories, and not just the view from the victors.

# data[].attributes.body
I think power can hold a big part in history, so to say, like someone with power could get people to listen to them and share the story how they want people to see ,so to say someone without power or status whatever you wanna call it, and then those people that the person with power gets to listen to pass down that story and no one would’ve listen to the person’s story that had lower power in to see their view on history at the time and their story goes untold.

# data[].attributes.body
How does power influence history and the writing of histories?

Power not only plays an important role in how history unravels but also in how it is recorded. In a lot of historical records, events are often recorded by an important/ powerful figure, such as the Pope. But with this comes the manipulation of reality and the warping of facts to better fit the agenda of said recorder. History has always been biased, even as it was happening.