Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
History should not be left to the historians. Rather, be like Churchill. Make history, and then write it.
The best writers attempt to become alternative historians.
For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself.
Biographers use historians more than historians use biographers, although there can be two-way traffic - e.g., the ever-growing production of biographies of women is helping to change the general picture of the past presented by historians.
What is a historian, anyway? It is someone who uses facts to record the development of humanity.
My individual way of taking on the burdens of history has changed. I don't think of them only as burdens; I think they are honorable.
The people who make history are not the people who make it who are there but the people who make it and then write about it.
I was thinking of writing a little foreword saying that history is, after all, based on people's recollections, which change with time.
Historians will handle a much wider range of sources than a biographer and will be covering a broader spectrum of events, time, peoples.
Leave history to historians.