What is considered to be a Historical Fact?
In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue on three ships, the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria and discovered America.
This statement is widely considered to be a Historical Fact.
We would not cite this in a document because there is an implication that there is a source and that it is widely known and accepted as a fact by the public.
However, new evidence states that this is not a historical fact due to the fact that he did not "discover" anything. America was already here when he arrived.
In order for something to be considered a Historical Fact, it must contain the following.
Action:
Something taking place or happening.
An example would be.
.jpg)
Queen Elizabeth I was crowned queen on January 15th, 1559 at Westminster Abbey. The action of this statement would be crowned.
Location:
Where did it take place?
Using the example from above, the location would be Westminster Abbey.
Date/Time:
What was the day and what time did the event take place?
The date would be January 15th, 1559.
Finally, historical facts must contain the individual involved, in the example above, the individual would be Queen Elizabeth I.
I believe there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to what is a historical fact as History itself is based upon theory.
Take using the example above, some may argue that Elizabeth I was crowned queen the moment Queen Mary I died while others may use the above date.
There is always new evidence that comes forward and thus changing what is Historical fact. An example of this would be that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776. Delegates from the colonies signed it on that particular date. However, new evidence shows that it was signed over a period of time. This new evidence has not been brought to the general public because the date July 4th, 1776 has been accepted by the public as a Historical fact.
I personally believe that for something to be accepted as a Historical fact, it needs to be accepted by the general population as one. So while it's well and good to have the above criteria for the base, the outcome ultimately needs to be that the general public accepts it as such. If it is not, then in my opinion it cannot be accepted as a Historical fact.
However, new evidence states that this is not a historical fact due to the fact that he did not "discover" anything. America was already here when he arrived.
In order for something to be considered a Historical Fact, it must contain the following.
Action:
Something taking place or happening.
An example would be.
Queen Elizabeth I was crowned queen on January 15th, 1559 at Westminster Abbey. The action of this statement would be crowned.
Location:
Where did it take place?
Using the example from above, the location would be Westminster Abbey.
Date/Time:
What was the day and what time did the event take place?
The date would be January 15th, 1559.
Finally, historical facts must contain the individual involved, in the example above, the individual would be Queen Elizabeth I.
I believe there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to what is a historical fact as History itself is based upon theory.
Take using the example above, some may argue that Elizabeth I was crowned queen the moment Queen Mary I died while others may use the above date.
There is always new evidence that comes forward and thus changing what is Historical fact. An example of this would be that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776. Delegates from the colonies signed it on that particular date. However, new evidence shows that it was signed over a period of time. This new evidence has not been brought to the general public because the date July 4th, 1776 has been accepted by the public as a Historical fact.
I personally believe that for something to be accepted as a Historical fact, it needs to be accepted by the general population as one. So while it's well and good to have the above criteria for the base, the outcome ultimately needs to be that the general public accepts it as such. If it is not, then in my opinion it cannot be accepted as a Historical fact.
OK - my head is hurting. Are you saying that there is not such thing as historical fact? That everything is theory??? If you do, you certainly are a postmodernist.
ReplyDelete