Afeni Shakur Quotes

Leave history to historians.

The historian is, by definition, absolutely incapable of observing the facts which he examines.

History is only conjecture, and the best historians try to do it as accurately as they can. They try to accurately reassemble the facts and then put them down on paper.

I believe that historians and analysts of historical events need the authority of facts supplied by living witnesses to the events, which they make their subject.

In history, one gathers clues like a detective, tries to present an honest account of what most likely happened, and writes a narrative according to what we know and, where we aren't absolutely sure, what might be most likely to have happened, within the generally accepted rules of evidence and sources.

As a historian, I love every little detail, but whole long passages about wood paneling and journeys on horseback and every stop at every inn had to go out the window. I decided the history in the books should be like spice in a soup - a little went a long way. Like cilantro.

The historian is terribly responsible to what he can discern are the facts of the case, but he's nothing if he doesn't make out a case.

I study history in order to give an interpretation.

As a historian, you can only go as far as the evidence will take you.

Creative memory is the historian's most subtle opponent.

What his imagination is to the poet, facts are to the historian. His exercise of judgment comes in their selection, his art in their arrangement.

Those of us who write and study history are accustomed to its approximations and ambiguities. This is why we do not take literally the tenth-hand reports of frightened and illiterate peasants who claim to have seen miracles or to have had encounters with messiahs and prophets and redeemers who were, like them, mere humans. And this is also why we will never submit to dictation from those who display a fanatical belief in certainty and revelation.

I am a historian. I do a lot of research, and I try to get it right.

You're not a historian, but most historians will tell you that they make very discrete judgment as to what facts to omit in order to make their book into some shape, some length that can be managed.

I should add that it is open to debate whether what we call the writing of history these days is truly scientific.

So this was the big secret historians keep to themselves: historical research is wildly seductive and fun. There's a thrill in the process of digging, then piecing together details like a puzzle.

I like reading history, and actually most authors enjoy the research part because it is, after all, easier than writing.

You need, as a historian, essential triangulation from your subject and the only way you get that triangulation is through time.

Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them.

Accuracy is paramount in every detail of a work of history. Here's my rule: Ask yourself, 'Did this thing happen?' If the answer is yes, then it's historical. Then ask, 'Did this thing happen precisely this way?' If the answer is yes, then it's history; if the answer is no, not precisely this way, then it's historical drama.

We're uncomfortable about considering history as a science. It's classified as a social science, which is considered not quite scientific.

Events in the past may be roughly divided into those which probably never happened and those which do not matter. This is what makes the trade of historian so attractive.

Historians are not good at hypothetical questions.

Writing history takes a great deal of imagination. I don’t mean making things up, but you have to be able to transport yourself to another time.

History is nothing but assisted and recorded memory. It might almost be said to be no science at all