I do not know what I expected from the lessons we were going to have in History ToK. To me history was history, something that could not be changed, great events in the past that would always be remembered, and something to tell your grandchildren. It is first now that I see that this view of history was way too romantic and simplified.

When I was being introduced to questions such as “who decides what is history?” or “what causes events to happen?” I saw how wrong I had been. History is mainly a reference to the past, to what is behind us. This means that when I write the letter “K” on the keyboard in exactly this moment, it is already history, because it belongs to the past. But history is also a subject, something that can be studied. Some people dedicate their lives to study history.

I thought studying history mainly was about finding out what happened during some past event. And I was right, except that I did not think about the fact that they are also looking for causes for why these events took place. I find it intriguing and maybe also a bit frightening that it is the historians who have all the power when it comes to retelling a story or event, and what they tell might not be correct in regard to the actual events.

So creating a credible historical retell of an event is all about collecting sources and draw conclusions out of these. The only problem is that these conclusions might be horribly wrong. This is why many historians debate about what sources tell and try to persuade the public opinion into believing that their account is true based on sources and evidence. The causes of historical events are also debated; some think that the environment and the current situation make events happen, others believe in free will. I personally find it more logical to give the credit of occurrences to free will. Maybe this is because I dislike the idea of destiny, that all we do is already decided and cannot be undone or done otherwise.

- elgvin