Paige says that history is not worth studying for because it is subjective to the winner, and the facts only come from those winners. The thing is, if this were true, history books would not have bad things to talk about certain topics. One example would be a US history book. If the US wrote the book because they are the “winner”, then why in the world do they include things like the 9/11 or the Civil War? Why do Americans who are the “winners” put things that make the US look weak? If the winners want to look strong they would not include things that are not positive, they would omit them and disregard those things.
There are many events in history that are not only told by the winner but the loser. One such event is the Civil war. We had two different sides fighting for different things. Although the north was the winner, I would say that they both were losers. They both lost things. The north lost many men, had to rebuild a nation that had been torn apart. The south were just losers because they lost the war, yet we have both sides of the story. We have parts of both that make up the history of this terrible war.
Paige, by making this assumption basically says that because the winner wrote history the facts are wrong. The key is that facts are facts. You can’t say that something did not happen just because “winners” wrote it. Instead, we should look deeper into our history and take a look at both sides. We should be the judges of history by doing our own research. Then after hours of work we can decide whether to believe what was written.
The last thing I have to say to Paige is, by you saying that history is written by the “winner”, are you making a statement of fact? The key to this is that if she is, she is contradicting her own religion by doing so. She is being subjective in saying that only the winners write down history.
