Stories and Narratives in History

      Based off of what this article discussed, I believe that a lot of the history that we know is a twisted, biased reality. A way around that, to have a completely unbiased story of history is, I think, near impossible. The argument that I will make is that there are very few ways in which all of history can be told in an unbiased manner, that we can all agree upon. Most of history we know of is through documentation of what happened. These documents are all written by humans and therefore have a natural bias. Even with a conscious effort to be unbiased, it is still extremely difficult. I think one reason why narratives and stories are told in history is that they are so much more fun and interesting to hear. For example, when you’re a little kid, you are more likely to listen to a story than plain facts without any emotion behind them. I feel like this goes back to a natural tendency to try to have empathy and try to put one’s self in the shoes of another, and that can really only be achieved through a story, where you see the emotions and feelings of a person. However, even though stories are fun to hear and read, they are not entirely true either. Unless it is an autobiography or record of one’s feelings towards something. We don’t know what is going on in the heads of others. We can make educated assumptions, but we can never know for sure. Having one’s thoughts and emotions in a story is one of the biggest parts of a story. Every day, we all make educated assumptions consciously and subconsciously that affect what we do, say, and think. I agree with the argument that the article presented, which is, how stories are interfering with us getting a real understanding of history.