When studying history, why do people only consider one side of the story and count it as fact?

Question

Imagine, if you are on trial, and neither you nor your lawyer is allowed to speak at all.

Answer 1

They don't always consider just 1 side.  They just pick 1 side to be true, usually the first 1 they learn.  Then they discard the other side as wrong.

Also, not every story has 2 sides, and some stories have only been documented from 1 side.

But yes, almost everyone only considers one side of a story as true.  And think about this.  Only 1 of the stories can be true, in many occasions, 1 is determined true and the other thrown aside as fiction.

Answer 2

history is documented with truths and facts. facts include: dates, names, and the context of events.

a historians opinion on how to interpret these facts are truths. you cannot alter facts only truths.  

Answer 3

Taught and studies properly, history is not a re-telling of a certain line, but rather a detective story involving gathering and considering evidence. Hence all sides should be considered, but each position must be considered in light of supporting evidence, and each piece of evidence examined for its credibility and truthfullness.

The ultimate search for truth is the goal of history, but we accept this is usually only an ideal and in  its place we must, like in a trial, consider the merits of different arguments.

Unfortunately, history is routinely abused by those seeking to gain influence or benefit from mass delusion. As humans, we have a built-in desire to be deluded and to be fed comforting myths, so we reward this sort of behaviour.

Answer 4

As one wise man said, "The victors write history"

It's as simple as that. Whoever wins, usually ends up writing history. Imagine if Germany DID win WWII, they wouldn't be fair. They'd probably make the Jews out to be killers, etc.

We'll never really know. There's a quote someone told me once, "There's 3 truths: His story, her story and the truth". We'll never really be sure because history, in essence, isn't always objective. We always have to go by what others before us have said, and it's always hard to tell whether they're being objective or not. It's a difficult process. That's why historians try check multiple sources instead of just relying on one.  

Answer 5

Observe this scene from the musical Wicked.

Wizard of Oz: I guess I just wanted to give the citizens of Oz everything...

Wicked Witch: So you lied to them?

Wizard of Oz: Only verbally! And they were the lies they wanted to hear! Elphaba, where I'm from we believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it...  'history.'

[He sings] A mans' called a traitor, or liberator. A rich man's a thief, or philanthropist. Is one a crusader, or ruthless invader? Its all in which label, is able to persist. There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities, so we act as though they don't exist!

Answer 6

Those of us who truly study history, often look for more than one or two sources.  It is the public education system that has failed to look at more than one aspect of any given situation.

If you were a police officer investigating a traffic "accident" and all of the witnesses to that accident told you the same exact story, you would have to conclude that they were lying.  You would have to assume that they'd gotten together before you'd arrived and discussed what they were going to say.  But, if they each told a slightly different version of the same story you would be more inclined to believe this to be the truth.  Bottom line is, no two people view the same even and see everything exactly the same way.  It becomes a matter then, of "critical thinking."  Sadly, not too many people in this country have the ability to do that.