On 4/12/02 11:21:00 AM, Brandi Noble wrote:
>I think that Tompkins is still
>a little vague
>on what her conclusion is.
>She doesn't
>seem to come to a medium of
>what she
>is researching. She uses her
>own
>instincts and thoughts to come
>about her
>conclusion. I don't feel that
>history has
>one real story of how things
>happen. I
>think it is how people
>perceive things and
>what is relative to their
>particular state of
>mind.


You don't feel that history has one real story of how things happen? Do you mean this in general? That history doesn't follow one steady path? Or do you mean that each specific happening does not have one reality of what happened? I would agree that every person views what happened in history differently, and they would think that their perspective is right, otherwise they wouldn't believe it. But in each circumstance there IS a reality of what happened, even if no two people see it alike. How can a perspective be right if it isn't what really happened? Someone can believe that their perspective is true, but does that really make them right?