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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I was thinking of writing a little foreword saying that history is, after all, based on people's recollections, which change with time.
Leave history to historians.
History is one of those marvelous and necessary illusions we have to deal with. It's one of the ways of dealing with our world with impossible generalities which we couldn't live without.
So history is fertile territory for me and I think I could feel happy with any period of history, provided I had the right sources and the necessary time for the initial research.
The very concept of history implies the scholar and the reader. Without a generation of civilized people to study history, to preserve its records, to absorb its lessons and relate them to its own problems, history, too, would lose its meaning.
Perhaps the most important lesson of the New Social Historians is that history belongs to those about whom or whose documents survive.
The main thing is to make history, not to write it.
We live in an era with no historical precedents. History is no longer useful as a tool in helping us understand current changes.
History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
History should not be left to the historians. Rather, be like Churchill. Make history, and then write it.