I’m not sure insisting that the past can be known or that we should focus on “how it actually was” is the most helpful way to deal with blatantly factless stories. Instead, I would call for the more difficult path of cultivating greater discernment when it comes to speaking or hearing history in the public sphere. Unsurprisingly, I think part of the solution lies in history education – in emphasizing the importance of evidence (over opinion), plausibility (over truth), and complexity (over simplicity) in the interpretation of history.
However, I do wonder if Smith’s insistence on leaving aside storytelling and the significance of historical phenomena, and pursuing history as “an arbiter of truth” actually exacerbates the issue instead of mending it. To suggest that we can pursue historical truth without storytelling belies the nature of historical evidence and promotes the uncritical division of historical claims into “truth” or “not truth” (storytelling, for Smith).
