Distinguishing Historical Myth from Fact

It is not uncommon to read conflicting news accounts on the same event. Assuming history is derived from collections of vintage news stories, oral histories, letters and memoirs, how does a historian recognize the accurate version? I asked this question of a California historian, and was surprised at their response.

In the late 1980's and early 1990's I was the editor of a small regional monthly publication. We regularly featured historical articles, which I lovingly and painstakingly researched. My partner in research was a crusty woman, named Frances Yarnall, who has long since passed away.

Yarnall was the president of our village's historical society, and she delighted in disproving historical accounts of the families of some remaining local pioneers. Her desire, I am sorry to say, did not stem from a passion for truth, but rather a perverse pleasure in overturning a popular applecart.

My desire for the truth was simply an obsession for accuracy. I also loved a mystery, and should I discover conflicting information I found it intriguing, and at times a bit troubling. Some reported events had an array of documented versions, and I began questioning all that I had learned of history.

This questioning led me to contact a local historian, at the California Room at the library in San Bernardino County, California. My question was simple. When you uncover multiple versions of a historical event, how does the historian know which version to use?

The answer: the story most often told. I was stunned. And while I have no guarantee if that is a popular practice amongst all professional historians, it does give new respect to the public relations professional. A skilled public relations officer can in essence shape what future generations know (or think they know) of history. For, if that historian from the California Room was correct, the story most often told, is the story that will be considered the true historical account.

If all of this is accurate, then it gives me new insight into the practice of many lawyers. Their strategy is based on this premise: tell a story enough times, and people will begin to accept it as truth.

Watch the evening news as an attorney, for an obviously guilty defendant, repeatedly insists that the client is innocent. News show after news show the attorney affirms his claim, never addressing the fact the defendant was caught holding the bloody knife, just after three different network camera crews happened on the scene to capture the fatal stabs on film. The attorney will repeat over, and over, and over again that the defendant is innocent. Until finally, some viewers begin nodding their head in hypnotic agreement.