[pgalvin]

It is laughable to suggest that history does not change. Even studying history at the equivalent of high school had me comparing secondary sources from the 1960s, to the 1990s, to just a couple years prior. History, or rather our interpretation of it, is constantly evolving.

I expect it is the same for most of the humanities.

[WalterBright]

> is constantly evolving

Being an amateur historian myself, most of that smacks of political fashion. The (very) shallow view of history taught by K-12 doesn't need to change. The War of 1812 hasn't moved to 1814 yet. Hitler still lost WW2. Edison still invented the first practical lightbulb, despite all the attempts to dethrone him :-)

[mhh__]

Studying history formally isn't about memorising stuff you are interested in. I have a lot of sovietology books now, that doesn't make me a sovietologist because I don't consider myself able to really analyze the sources properly.

[WalterBright]

Teaching history is not about becoming a historian. Being a professional historian comes with it some standard practices and methods, which is irrelevant if you're not a pro. Though I have learned to not trust "history" books written by journalists, who usually write them because they have a political axe to grind.

As for historical facts, you cannot understand history without knowing any facts about it. For example, you cannot understand the American Revolution without knowing who the major players were and some idea of what their roles were.

BTW, I have an interest in Soviet history. I'm interested in your recommendations on the best books on the topic.

[TchoBeer]

The war of 1812 ended in 1815

[WalterBright]

Things are usually named by when they start, not end.