>>RIP Howard Zinn.
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/28zinn.html
>>
>>He probably did more damage in more history departments than anyone else I can think of and his propagandistic presentation of "history" was like crack for those who got their politics from Holywood stars and John Lennon songs, but he really believed in what he did and lived a good life.
>>
>>I only met him once, in the 60s, but I liked him. He was on the right side of a lot of things that mattered. A terrible historian, but a good man.
>
>But, of course, this assumes that history is knowable as a set of objective facts. I come more and more to the conclusion that history is the subjective interpretation of a combination of factual events, presumed events, assumed events and imagined events all combined and then explained as a story through time, a sequence of causes and effects, which itself can fall foul of the narrative fallacy.

Agreed completely. Even fairly recent history often proves fallacious. When people regard historical accounts of events which occurred hundreds or even thousands of years ago as (ahem) gospel, I can't help rolling my eyes.