History is the study of life in society in the past, in all its aspect, in relation to present developments and

future hopes. ... It is an inquiry into the inevitable changes in human affairs in the past and the ways
these changes affect, influence or determine the patterns of life in the society.

To explain the difference between factual history and speculative history, we first need to take a look on
what "factual" and "speculative" means. Here we have the speculative vs factual.

Factual coming from the word "Fact" means that it is something that can be proven or something that is
already proven.

Specualtive coming from the word "Specualte" means that something that can be viewed from different
angles or views.

Factual History meaning events in history that happened with proof of the event or thing taking place.
This type of history can be backed up by writings or even footage of the event that took place.

Speculative History meaning events in history that may have an alternate history or questionable
history. This type of history is mainly used when two or more parties have different answers on why a
certain event had taken place or how a certain event had taken place.

monumental history is about activity and ambition, antiquarian history is about preservation and
admiration, and critical history is about abolition and liberation. The purpose here is not to be didactic
and identify a "correct" use of history regarding the HoF; instead, it’s to put a frame around the HoF as
an object of history. I ultimately hope to present a firmer understanding of the nature of the Baseball
Hall of Fame. It’s first necessary to flesh out the conditions that allow for historical thinking in each of
the three modes Nietzsche identifies. The two single most important foundations are the ability live
unhistorically and the ability to forget.

The monumentalist actively pursues the study of models of greatness that existed in the past. She or he
uses the models as teachers. It is a paradoxical use of history. On the one hand, monumentalism
contains a great deal of optimism because it is based on the belief that greatness has existed in all
generations. The great existed once, and it can exist again. On the other hand, monumentalism tends to
fetishize the greatness that once existed, and in doing so it creates an impermeable barrier between the
monumental historian and present greatness. It encourages pessimism. The reason for this is that the
monumentalist tends to use history to form a chain of greatness.
The self-appointed task of the antiquarian historian is to preserve the past for current and future
admiration. The advantage antiquarianism offers is that it advocates for the protection of history. To the
antiquarian, history self-evidently has value for its own sake. An antiquarian view of the HoF softens
what we find undesirable about baseball’s past and, by way of the past, its present: segregation, unfair
labor practices, gambling, and drug use. Instead, it focuses on supposedly objective criteria of historical
preservation and emphasizes misleadingly self-evident feats.The problem of antiquarianism emerges
from its purpose. It has a limited vision and runs the risk of becoming stultifying historical naval-gazing.
Antiquarian history revolves around itself; antiquarian historians don’t know how to forget. "The time
will finally come when everything old and past which has not totally been lost sight of," Nietzsche writes
about antiquarian history, "will simply be taken as equally venerable, while whatever does not approach
the old with veneration, that is, the new and growing, will be rejected and treated with hostility." In this
way, antiquarianism resembles monumentalism. The difference is that the antiquarian thinks with the
past and rejects the present as an incoherent threat, while the monumentalist thinks with the future but
only concedes that the present might be great someday.

The critical historian seeks release through destruction. According to Nietzsche, the critical historian
judges, interrogates, and ultimately condemns the past. Critical history needs to temporarily reject
forgetfulness, be immersed in too much history, and destroy what deserves to be destroyed.
"Occasionally," Nietzsche posits about critical history, "the same life which needs forgetfulness demands
the temporary destruction of this forgetfulness; then it is to become clear how unjust is the existence of
some thing, a privilege, a caste, a dynasty for example, how much this thing deserves destruction. Then
its past is considered critically." The history that antiquarianism softens requires the critical historian’s
exposure. In typical Nietzschean fashion, the destruction is only a precursor to creation — to make
something better.

The critical historian’s dilemma is to know when to stop. Too much destruction and refashioning of the
past can lead to the creation of a history desired, which can in turn have the same petrifying effect that
antiquarian history has in the present. A critical historian who (arguably) goes too far might be one who
wants to expunge the HoF of all players and subject each one to a vote today using an entirely new set
of criteria and guidelines for admittance