HEL I WILL GIVE FREE BONUS POINTS IF I PASS THIS (NO PLAGERISM)

Historical “revisionism” is the practice of revising the generally accepted version of a history. Rather than assuming that history books and previous historians are “telling the whole truth” about history, revisionists reexamine the evidence left by history and may assign new and different meaning or significance to historical events.

Reasonable people disagree about whether historical revisionism is a valid and beneficial practice. What do you think? Should people accept the version of history that they’ve been taught, or should they look for other ways to interpret, view, or describe historical events?
Explain your answer in a thoughtful discussion post, including your reasons for thinking as you do about revisionism.

hey

Explanation:

Historical “revisionism” is the practice of revising the generally accepted version of a history. Rather than assuming that history books and previous historians are “telling the whole truth” about history, revisionists reexamine the evidence left by history and may assign new and different meaning or significance to historical events.

Reasonable people disagree about whether historical revisionism is a valid and beneficial practice. What do you think? Should people accept the version of history that they’ve been taught, or should they look for other ways to interpret, view, or describe historical events?

Explain your answer in a thoughtful discussion post, including your reasons for thinking as you do about revisionism.

is this a multiple choice question? if so, could i see the answers to give you the right one!

the american colonists were happy with their vicorty, but the french were mad and the french and indians were not alies, and neither were the french and colonist. i think,