The Murdering of History - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Tor · #46 (**permalink**) 12-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGG

I hope you know Leif Eriksson was a Viking.

Uhm, yes in the recesses of my mind. I just meant that Leif is always written about separately because he was more of an explorer, whereas the other Vikings tend to be lumped together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGG

In principle, I agree, though I certainly think some people these days seem to want to take the emphasis on other cultures too far. For good and bad, the European civilisation was the one that united the world. It was done through conquest and the death of many innocent natives, but many of the decendants of these natives have gotten a materially much better life and greater opportunities thanks to it.

Yes, but is this a good thing, this better material life? I think it has gone too far because it fails to take the cost of exploiting our natural resources into consideration, so now we are facing environmental and social issues because of this attitude. I feel that the emphasis on other cultures is good because it allows people to see beyond America and United States nationalistic pride nonsense. We are too isolationist for our own good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGG

(By the way, Tor, I like your avatar.)

Thanks!!

Gort · #47 (**permalink**) 12-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGG

I see what you mean. Interpretations can change due to new discoveries.

However, if one says it is only the interpretation of history that changes, it sounds a little like all the facts of history were already on the table, and it was only a matter of interpreting it.

That would in my view be accurate. Lets take the second world war for example. We dropped the bomb on 2 Japanese cities. At the time given the recent history of the Japanese empires resistance on Iwo Jima and its barbarism the interpretation of those events was that to invade Japan proper would be a blood bath for both the US and Japanese civilians. In recent times however that is being interpreted differently. Now people are looking at it with 60 years of hindsight and saying the Japanese government was ready to quit anyway. The historical fact is the bomb was dropped. The interpretation is what has changed as to why it was dropped. Truman had the same basic information then we have now but interpreted it differently. Who is right? In this case I would probably defer to Truman others do not. It is my perception versus theirs about the same basic facts. Even more striking is this conflict over the European theater. Americans tend to think we helped save Europe. The Russians feel they pretty much did it all on thier own, just look at Olegs posts for examples of this. The historical fact is both nations played a role, but how you percieve that role to large part depends on where you live.

Louis Lingg · #48 (**permalink**) 12-02-2006

IronMaiden27,

I'm elated by your astutely well conceived contribution of this thread. At the risk of obviation I reiterated that history is a social science. That in and of it's self defies one's ability to murder it; the misconstruction of the past is possible but it's destruction is not possible.

As one that wasted his governmental granted benefits in the study of this throughly enigmatic discipline, I'm most enthused by those that have contributed to this thread. Gort is of course correct that history is not a stagnant science (in so much that it's interpretation will vary within the concepts in which it is viewed.

Various historians have been mentioned in this thread and honestly most of the disparaging remarks against them are not entirely sound. I personally like the style of Stephen Ambrose. If he is indeed guilty of plagiarism I think all historians are also as they were most frequently not witnesses to the events they portray.

I share Tor's enamor of Howard Zinn but of course his work would be meaningless without the Gustavus Myers's following the money History of the Great American Fortunes. Certainly the works of William Manchester and Ferdinand Lundberg are of even more relevance to those of us that seek to understand the machinations that effected foreign entities such as Iraq Petroleum Company.

IronMaiden27 · #49 (**permalink**) 12-04-2006

Thanks. Yeah, most people rely on history books as fact. This is the problem with it all. This is why history repeats itself. Also, if you strip away all the emotional aspeacts and viewpoints of an author's text book, you will be left with fragmented sentences and mis-matched information. I've tried it and it doesn't work. Thus, fact is indeed influenced partly by emoition. Without some emotional aspect, there can be no validity to a claim.

BTW, nice signature. I've noticed the tranisitioning into Facisim in this country too. You aren't the only one.

USViking · #50 (**permalink**) 12-04-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

...I've noticed the tranisitioning into Facisim [sic] in this country too. You aren't the only one.

Get over it.

I wonder if even in the People's Republic of Massachussets
more than a tiny fringe hold this extreme, unhinged, and I
might say lunatic position.

Elections in tyrannies are always a fixed sham. Well, in the US
the party holding legislative power for 12 years found itself
uncermoniously dumped in the recent past, in spite of also having
control of the executive branch for six years. Furthermore, it
allowed a good part of its aganda to be thwarted by the minority
through the undemocratic device of the fillibuster. There may be
another tiny fringe in this country holding true Fascist convictions.
Very tiny. Even tinier than the Chicken Littles whose hallucinations
depict a US version of goose-stepping, "Seig Heiling" masses as
just around the corener and barely suppressed.

IronMaiden27 · #51 (**permalink**) 12-05-2006

Hey, think what you want, man. It's more than tiny. I would say since Bush has been president, it has increased. Knowing that people realize the same thing as I, is enough for me. Anyone who thinks contrary, can do so.

USViking · #52 (**permalink**) 12-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

Hey, think what you want, man. It's more than tiny. I would say since Bush has been president, it has increased. Knowing that people realize the same thing as I, is enough for me. Anyone who thinks contrary, can do so.

Well that was a real whizz of a reply.

Nice going, well done, congratulations.

IronMaiden27 · #53 (**permalink**) 12-05-2006

I know, wasn't it... even amidst your sarcasm.

DGG · #54 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

That would in my view be accurate. Lets take the second world war for example. We dropped the bomb on 2 Japanese cities. At the time given the recent history of the Japanese empires resistance on Iwo Jima and its barbarism the interpretation of those events was that to invade Japan proper would be a blood bath for both the US and Japanese civilians. In recent times however that is being interpreted differently. Now people are looking at it with 60 years of hindsight and saying the Japanese government was ready to quit anyway. The historical fact is the bomb was dropped. The interpretation is what has changed as to why it was dropped. Truman had the same basic information then we have now but interpreted it differently. Who is right? In this case I would probably defer to Truman others do not. It is my perception versus theirs about the same basic facts. Even more striking is this conflict over the European theater. Americans tend to think we helped save Europe. The Russians feel they pretty much did it all on thier own, just look at Olegs posts for examples of this. The historical fact is both nations played a role, but how you percieve that role to large part depends on where you live.

Still, a historian in the 1950's might have a less accurate view of Truman's intelligence than a historian now. There were military intelligence that Truman knew of, that was classified in the 1950's but might have been made public since. A historian these days may also interprete the Japanese willingness to fight or surrender based on Japanese documents not available to the historian of the 1950's, nor to Truman.

Ironman Jack · #55 (**permalink**) 12-07-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahul

Andrew makes a good point. I wonder how the aborignes would view history compared to modern white Australians, or how the native Indians would view history compared to history as potrayed by white Americans ...

There are many Native American writers and books, so I would say take a look and decide for yourself!Who will ever tell or write the TRUTH on the HATRED of Islam and Mohammed?

mabus · #56 (**permalink**) 12-07-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

As a dire obssessor over philosophy (Nitezsche in particular) and an avid self-proclaimed researcher of political and US history, I was thinking about this the other night, when I was stuck in the house with nothing to do...

Has anyone ever realized why there may be differing opinions and counter-facts during discussion? I honestly think it has to do with how history has been portrayed and poorly taught over the centuries. First of all, I wonder how many of you know that almost every textbook from different centuries and areas of the US and world differs. The scary part is, it seems to change in order to fit the current situation. With change, I mean either ambiguity or exaggerated claim.

I believe that history is not so much meant to educate (as almost every concept of history has been repeated one way or another), but moreso created for the rhetorical acts of steering the masses in order to protect and distort image, to obtain public approval.

It seems to me that history books, due to contradicting information between each other, are actual facts that have been taken and distorted and twisted in favor of the current situation and/or events. Like the bible, stories are exaggerated around fact, which is NOT good, as seeing as people take textbooks as absolute fact. Much like religion does the bible, Koran, etc...

For me to solidify my point, I ask "What is the truth"? The answer is that truth cannot be truly found, as it appears that unless we are witnesses to the actual events in question, we cannot rely on the assumptions of most people, as there is always debate, prejudices and differing perspectives that come into play - even in our textbooks. Therefore, truth fades as time goes by, much like gossip is distorted from person to person. History is all speculation, as the interpreters and our government are able to control and manipulate infomation whether it is done though exaggeration or ambiguity. This is the evil genius behind it all.

Anyone care to discuss?

Outside algebra, I consider the term "the truth" to be highly abstract, too. Funnily enough, I believe in a algebraic (->stochastic) approach when it comes to describing observations of "facts" in nature, allthough. Scientists have made polls and let great amounts of people guess weights and sizes of items they normally never get in touch with. The more people you ask, the closer the algebraic average of all this guesses lies to the real value. So the Gauss-distribution seems to be a fundamental law of all aspects of nature (proof for that "The truth lies in between", if you say so). So when I make my opinion, I make sure that "my probe is as big and as unselective as possible", and "I measure the average value". The result is still not the truth, but it lies a step closer to what most people would call so - if they knew everything.

3.14 · #57 (**permalink**) 12-07-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironman Jack

Who will ever tell or write the TRUTH on the HATRED of Islam and Mohammed?

More off topic ranting, Ironman. You really seem to be carrying a heavy chip on your shoulder. Try and let go of the ridiculous notion that Islam is based upon hatred - others may actually start to discuss things with you then.

Mark_Twain · #58 (**permalink**) 12-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

An important point that seems to have been overlooked here is this: history is written by the victor. Whether that is a military or cultural victory is irrelevant. Whoever is left writes the book and these same people can very easily omit or change things that have happened.

There are many factors that feed into the imperfection of history, as it were.

Actually, this is not true. There are lots of peoples through time who were defeated & still succeeded in getting their version of "history" into the popular discourse. A great example would be the enslaved peoples of the Israelite nation. Today, most Christians recognize this "history" as the Old Testament.

Mark_Twain · #59 (**permalink**) 12-16-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

A couple of points upon reviewing this thread.

1. Stephen Ambrose is a 2nd rate 'pop-culture' historian and a serial plagarist.

Say what you will about Ambrose, the fact remains that he brought history to the "proletariat." As a person who has been in both academia & now deigns to attempt "popular" history via the vehicle of documentary film-making, I appreciate & admire how Ambrose (in concert with a league of poorly paid research assistants & with a few appropriated passages) was able to bring the Lewis & Clark story to the masses shortly before his death. I dare you to read "Undaunted Courage" and not be moved to go walk in the footsteps of these explorers.

The main criticism of Ambrose (and other "pop" historians like him) is that they are successful. The chorus typically comes from academians who only WISH they could have their stilted, dry writings as widely appreciated. And of course, when you're high on the pedestal, more people will delve into your writings in an attempt to knock you off of it. That's why historians like Ambrose are oft-maligned. I personally do not think they're guiltier of anything more than a lot of lesser known historians I know; they just have more people deconstructing their words.

Joao Dasilva · #60 (**permalink**) 12-16-2006

IronMaiden27,

'History' is the official record of our past and is such must, to a large degree, show those whom have traditionally been at the levers of power (classes/cliques) in a positive light, even if they are 100% culpable for many of our problems.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/historical-discourse/34057-murdering-history.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
The Murdering of History - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum	This thread	Refback	12-18-2006 02:45 PM
The Murdering of History - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum	This thread	Refback	11-29-2006 11:04 AM
The Murdering of History - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum