Historically Accurate?

Paige is ignorant. This is not an ad hominem argument, merely an explanation of her foolish reasoning to forgo the lessons of history. History is one of the greatest gifts given to a literate society; we learn history so that we are not doomed to repeat it. Her explanation of history as determined by the winners is not only narrow-minded, but losses the compilation of winners and losers that create history. History is such a wonderful gift, a useful tool, and a inspiring message to the future. It should never be labeled elitist or racist. History is a story of facts. Sure, inconsistencies can occur, but the majority of history is founded upon archeological evidence and resources (books or oral stories) that have been tested for accuracy. Paige's claim that history is not objectively true boils down to her decision to disbelieve history and support that was poor reasoning. Objectively true is truth and to discredit the truth is to call it a lie. Therefore, Paige makes the assumption that history is a lie- obviously, she doesn't look at her car, phone, or streets. We live in a world that encapsulates the past and is defined by the advances made. History isn't a recording of the minority's uprising; it may include the lessons of civil rights and struggles against racism. History cannot be defined as subjective because it exists objectively. Furthermore, history is the "study of past events, particularly in human affairs" or "the past considered as a whole."Paige is changing history into something it is not in order to satisfy her belief in society's agenda. History is compiled based upon people's biases or the winner's power, yes they may have written some history down, but so did the losers. History is compiled based upon objective understanding of based events which is engendered by the the cohesion of winners and losers. 

The importance of the reliability of history is extremely important. It is our duty as citizens to check the accuracy of the facts and understand the perspective it was recorded in. While studying United States History, I came to understand the true reasoning behind the Civil War. It didn't ask as Abe Lincoln's call to free the slave and although that was a part of his motivation- the Civil War was fought due to dramatically different lifestyles, beliefs, and the need for resources. In the same thread, Prohibition seems ridiculous and foolish without understanding the motivation of the government, after seeking explanations history becomes a web of decisions based upon varying opinions. Subjectivity doesn't necessarily imply a crime, within the areas of history that have become subjective by society, it is man's role to bring the facts to light. The value is not removed purely by being subjective, in fact you can learn even more because the recorder was subjective for a specific reason. History is awesome. I love learning about history and discovering how past society's acted. To renounce the study of history because you believe it's decided by "winners", is to ignore the plight of Nathan Hale, Martin Luther King Jr., Abigail Adams. There dreams never came to fruition during their lifetimes and they died. Does that define losers or winners? Here lies the problem of labeling people in such a way- what makes them losers or winners? History doesn't depend on the outcome, it is the story of getting there.