However, there is no reason why the popular memory should be disregarded as history, as it is just as valuable as the scholarly history itself, it just needs to be analyzed for different purposed. Historical events viewed in a scholarly way are widely more accepted by academia, where memory is seen as separate from history. “Memory is not history” an article in The Economist proposes. It states that “memory is by its nature subjective and selective. It cannot substitute for history” (The Economist), which is a view that is often shared in the academic community, where memory is disregarded as biased and thus unworthy. History is often seen as the opposite of memory: “At the heart of history is a critical discourse that is antithetical to spontaneous”, “History is perpetually suspicious of memory”
However, there is no reason why the popular memory should be disregarded as history, as it is just as valuable as the scholarly history itself, it just needs to be analyzed for different purposed. Historical events viewed in a scholarly way are widely more accepted by academia, where memory is seen as separate from history. “Memory is not history” an article in The Economist proposes. It states that “memory is by its nature subjective and selective. It cannot substitute for history” (The Economist), which is a view that is often shared in the academic community, where memory is disregarded as biased and thus unworthy. History is often seen as the opposite of memory: “At the heart of history is a critical discourse that is antithetical to spontaneous”, “History is perpetually suspicious of memory”