Участник:Visioncurve

My greetings! I am a historian whose interests lie primarily in the history and culture of the people who inhabit or inhabited Central Asia in the past.
People argue that histories are subject to the prejudices of the historians who write them. Yes, history is subjective, and no one can be fully objective because of our specific leanings.
For many years, some historians have sought to question the utility of history. As Lord Robert Skidelsky argued: "It is obviously true that history is socially constructed. The historian‘s mind fashions the materials of the past into a text; and the mind of the historian today is likely to be very different from that of the historian in 1900 or 1600... The historian is publicly accountable for his text. He is not free to say what he likes about the past. He makes claims based on evidence. This evidence is generally open to scrutiny by his fellow historians. There is wide, though not complete agreement, about what constitutes relevant evidence."
History is as essential as the air we breathe. As Arthur Marwick, outstanding British historian, noted in support of the necessity for history: "To those who pose the question, "What is the use of history?" the crispest and most enlightening reply is to suggest that they try and imagine what everyday life would be like in a society in which no one knew any history. Imagination boggles, because it is only through knowledge of history that a society can have knowledge of itself. As a man without memory and self-knowledge is a man adrift, so a society without memory (or more correctly, without recollection) and selfknowledge would be a society adrift".