What is history but a fable agreed upon?

What is history but a fable agreed upon?

To understand this knowledge issue that raises a question o the credibility of history we must first clearly understand what is false and what the truth is. “Truth”, defined in a layman fashion, is the conforming of a proposition to reality, and is the most straightforward definition of this term. However it does have its flaws, the most apparent being the fact that if we are comparing a proposition to the reality of it in this world, do we not already possess an incorruptible example of the truth itself?
“Truth” is relative and personal to each and every one of us. As a result, the “truth” expressed in such situations might not be true, simply because it is based on question’s level of utility in your life, and might produce absurd situations. For example, to a colour blind person, a banana being yellow is false because it does not help him in any way at all- all colours look the same to him. It is agreed that a banana is yellow because there are more normal vision people than colour blind. However if colour blind people formed the majority of the world population than probably the banana would not be considered yellow, rather it would be the shade seen by the colour blind person. Thus truth is blinded by perspective the viewers sees it in and this is true for most areas of knowledge including history. Like in the case of colours, history becomes the idea that has been agreed upon.
History does not exist in a vacuum, but it is ‘owned’ and moulded by- Governments with political agendas and citizens who want to define their place within both their own society and the wider world. The history of war in particular serves as a basis for the evolution of national identities. Today when a child who has only studied a history text book prescribed in an Indian school will think about the second world and have categories in which he/she shall place countries. Britain, United States and France will be regarded as the peace makers who formed the League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles. Germany, Italy and Japan as the ambitious countries that posed danger to world peace. But there is much more to this. Britain was driven by self greed throughout. It was manipulative, it is said the ship of Lusitania was actually drowned deliberately by the British to blame it Germany and have a reason to attack it. The United States remained aloof for most part of the war, infact it benefited from the war and experienced an industrial revolution. The only country that threatened it was Japan and U.S completely demolished Japan by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. Germany on the other hand was not rationally justified, however the resentment was natural human reaction. The treaty of Versailles was ruthless, and evidently the triumphant countries were pursuing self interests. Germany felt cheated, Hitler appealed to the emotions of his country men, who were in a devastated state. Thus reacting in the way they did was not rational I agree but somewhere down the line it can be justified if we look at the emotional trauma of the people at that time.
Political elites usually act as custodians of the national essence and thus it is important for them to control the past with its connotative and emotional meanings. Insofar as history is always a dialogue between the present and the past, there is no way that it can be immune from the politics and preocupations of the present. Thus new questions are constantly being posed and new histories being written to highlight new ways in which the past and present are connected. This is not in itself undesirable provided the purpose remains the writing and understanding of real histories—of correcting older weaknesses and biases, of exploring hitherto unexplored terrains, of making better use of older or newer source materials, etc. There is always an instrumentalist dimension to history writing and teaching connected to the politics of the present. But a history-telling that is effectively reduced to such instrumentalism as its primary is no longer meaningful history though it can certainly be meaningful politics. Teaching of Indian history in ICSE schools is a classic example. When the Congress come to power they increase the portions of text books that glorify Gandhi and Nehru who were ex Congressmen. When the BJP (an opposing political party) comes to power then they increase portions that exalt Shivaji and other radical leaders who are idols for their party.
Thus, propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality, most people do not question facts and see nothing of how they are manipulated. This is not only tre for political parties but also other bodies that are in power. In the CIA there is a branch within its Directorate of Operations which deals entirely in media operations, mostly abroad (they're strictly illegal in the US--though it is known that doesn't always stop them), designed to influence public opinion. It is said that the CIA's budget for covert propaganda and generalized media operations alone, fifteen years ago, ranged between $75 and $200 million. However this information is from unknown sources and as the public we will never know the true story. These manipulated facts will actually form history tomorrow.
Security, stability and a sense of identity are basic human needs. Questioning history makes us question our identity, our surroundings and beliefs. Very few people are enterprising enough to do so. Most people agree to the parable formulated by those in power and remain in blissful oblivion. This parable is a mere representation of perspective and aspirations of the people in power. History is an amalgamation of facts, whims and biases and so is a fable. The truth is hard to find among all the micro histories, all we know are limited perspectives that most passively accept.