The Difference between purist view of history against the allegory of confluences of a river this question is asked a lot of times as the answer to this question is that a purist view of history is that the purist view of history is supposed to be unadulterated and the history is supposed to be in it’s true form. The history is supposed to be true to it’s essence and not supposed to be changed and is true without any biases here lies the difference between them where in the allegory of confluences is that it’s view of history is adulterated and is not true to its essence let me explain by giving an example. Take a river as a example such as Yamuna or Ganga which flows from the Himalayas and has reached the sea is not the same as the river from himalya is pure but while going down it is joined by other small tributaries and while the river is fowing it deposits a number of things and picks up different things as a result the river has changed by the time it has reached the sea. In the same way an allegory of confluence is that of history as the history is changed by picking up fake things and dropping of some parts of the history so the history can be baised and not same as that of a purist’s view of history as a llegory of confluence is not true to it’s essence