QQC 2 Kevin Murphy

"Why, then, should we continue to write histories of rhetoric when both writing and history are suspect? when the past wasn't really "there"? or when we agree that there was a past but not what the past really was? Well, it's too late to do otherwise." (RRT 291)

Is the only reason not to attempt to study, analyze, and interpret our history really only because it's too late or too entrenched into our practices? Are there any other reasons to continue the practice of historiography?

I have always been very interested in history and understanding what events and what people involved in those events did to get us to where we are today. It is upsetting when I see any notion or idea which seems to challenge the need for us to look back at our histories and to continue to analyze and interpret it so that, as humans continue on into the future, those who reside in that future will still be knowledgeable about the time we reside in and the times those who came before us resided in. Taking a cynical view of history and historiography can only lead to inaction and ignorance. Maybe the point isn't to have to get every single detail recorded and dated exactly. As long as the information we learn from history helps us to improve how we are and what we do, I think it has served its purpose.