> Academic historians are concerned with not just what happened in history, but how we know what happened in history. No. Academic historians are concerned wit

> Academic historians are concerned with not just what happened in history, but how we know what happened in history. No. Academic historians are concerned with maintaining the dominant historical narrative that they themselves have created. > "Hamilton" is a powerful piece of art--today--but it's not accurate history in an academic sense. Sure, but academic history is no more "true" or "accurate" than the Hamilton play. The historical concept of Hamilton is fiction created by historians affected by their own biases. History is interpretation. It isn't fact. It isn't science. > That nuance is going to be hard for a lot of people to understand. That's true for any "history". Nevermind that almost no historical document/artefact/etc is the "original", but the "history" we know is ultimately manufactured fiction. There are facts and then there is history ( which is what is colored in between the facts by historians ). There is Hamilton the actual person, then there is the historical adaptation of Hamilton, the play adaptation, movie adaptation, documentary adaptation, etc which are all fiction.