History: myth or fact?

Two good points are presented in the articles; Handlin who insists that history is true and absolute under all circumstances, and McNeill who says that history is more general and different groups of people can have different interpretations.

I tend to agree more along the lines with McNeill's argument. I don't agree that there are massive loopholes in history and that everything is just left to chance, but when it all comes down to it, it's possible that reports of certain happenings have been biased or perhaps twisted to favor a certain person or group. For example, when discussing a subject such as the Civil War, the north and south of the United States are going to have different interpretations and preconcieved ideas about what really happened and what people had key roles.

To say that I'm more on McNeill's side isn't to say that everything he says is exactly correct, but more that his opinion reflects my opinion more than Handlin.