Social History

Everyone gossips about everyone, in the form of stories, i.e. 'what happened'. These stories build up until there are social, political, and religious movements associated with them. The more a person is the subject of gossip, the less significant that person becomes and the more significant the stories. The person gets buried under the stories so there is no more fresh air to breathe anymore. This person should either hide, commit suicide, travel to a far away land, or just don't care about stories in order to be able to continue living, and I have some criteria for living that I don't need to get into. This is the case with many figures in history books. Some historians are a bunch of gossipers. The bigger the story they make, the thicker the book gets, and the more they appraise somebody and condemn another, the bigger and dirtier their mouth. We then appraise the historian and call them scholars.
But the point to catch from all these written work is content, professionalism, context, a deep understanding of human condition, so that we can discern the rightness and wrongness. So that when one person is unfairly praised, then there could be some potential fallacy in the viewpoint. I know rightness and wrongness are relative, but there are absolute right and wrong gods resting somewhere, probably sleeping by now, they are alittle bit shy.
Among all these junk history texts, get to know the works of Adamiyat. I think he had a subjective and objective understanding of the past of many regions, an objective understanding of what the learnt lessons could show, and a vision for the future. His personal gossip I don't know and don't care much to know. And no, I am not trying to make more gossip about him. Find out for yourself.

[Maybe this is why I like the Biological History better. Biological history is so safe and clean and peacefully intricate. The fossils are set in stone. They are not like humans, who can change their point of views one way or another depending on the weather channel.]