History 1

First of all, with so many accounts of history, that all line up for the most part, I find this argument very weak. Not only is history primarily written through eye witnesses, but it has been varified from both the sides of the winners and the losers. So many accounts that line up with the others on certain events even makes it more credible. Although it is true that some opinions expressed within the accounts may be biased, the facts itself are not biased, especially when they match up with the story told from the other side. We look to history to improve what we can about society today, and to look for guidance as to what we have done poorly in the past that has ultimately led to destruction. History is not only written from the winners, history is often tragic and history often accounts for the fall of civilizations, yet it is still recorded. Secondly, she states the idea that "history is written by the winners" as a fact, wheras her worldview: Postmodernism, revolves around the idea that there is no absolute truth. How can she say this then? Anyways, even if she rejected her view and stuck with defending her statement, it still does not make sense. Although it does hold some weight in that some winners did write history, ALL of history did not come from the winners. We should not disregard all of the importance of history because some of it was written from "winners."