history

Making a generalizing stament like that takes away the integrity of her argument. just because a "winner" writes history does not make what he wrote false or less integrible. when a piece of history is written by a winner it doesn't mean that it is wrong. it just means that the event is told more in their point of view. the integrity of the story is still there, all of the events are the same they are just shown through a certain persons side. history books weren't just written by one person who was a winner. those accounts were from multiple different people who all experienced the same thing. just because the winners write the history doesn't mean they can write what ever they want in them. the facts in the history books are true and there is ample evidence to prove it. we need to learn about our past so we do not make the same mistakes we have made in the past, like slavery or genocide. so this is why history matters even if it has been written by the winners...