[metropolis4]

Fight brews over Sarah Palin on Paul Revere Wikipedia page - The Fix - The Washington Post

I don't want to start a Palin bashing thread here, that's not really the point.

My thought is this: does it bother anyone else that history has become such a subjective and politicaly charged field?

I've been thinking about this. I read that Sarah Palin's supporters have tried to change the Wiki page on Paul Revere to better match her statements. I hear people on both sides arguing over the validity of her statements and it's stunning to hear both sides able to paint a picture of history that better supports their own side/opinion. I've been reading "A People's History of The United States" and recently found that my dad is reading "A Patriots History of The United States".

It just seems slightly scary that history is so subjective, and has become so politically motivated. It almost seems like we've come to a point where there is a 'liberal history' and a 'conservative history' each painting a very different picture of our nation than the other.

Are we so readilly willing to alter our past - what has made us who we are - for the sake of politics? Are we willing to allow our heritage to be twisted and contorted to better suit the current ruling party? Is this new, or has it always been this way?

And ultimately, who are we as a nation if we don't even know what our foundation is and where we come from? How can we be cohesive if we are divided at our foundation, at our very core?

It all seems disturbingly Orwellian somehow... or maybe I'm just tired

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

My thought is this: does it bother anyone else that history has become such a subjective and politicaly charged field?

Has it? I thought it always was, honestly.

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." - Napoleon

It all seems disturbingly Orwellian somehow... or maybe I'm just tired

It reminds me of the quote, " he who controls the present, controls the past." But this is not really Orwellian, it's just postmodern. Remember what Chris Wallace said when he was interviewing Jon Stewart? That FOX News tells the "other side." Not that it just tells the news. But I don't think FOX is exceptional in that regard. They're just more obvious.

[jthomas1600]

Slap, I came across this on another website this week; "history is the version of the past as told by the victor". The site I found that quote on is a martial arts site and the discussion was the history of Taekwondo which involves the history of Japan and Korea. Here's the thing though Taekwondo is not really an ancient martial art. Under the current name and set of rules it is only 60-70 years old and there's a dozen different versions of it's history. So how can we expect that we have a one correct version of any historical event of something that happened several hundred years ago?

[Role Modlin]

History is always being rewritten...from all sides. It doesn't surprise me at all. Does it bother me? Not really...because it has been a given for me. That's why I try to read as many "sides" to each story as possible.

Unfortunately...not every one chooses to do so.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Slap, I came across this on another website this week; "history is the version of the past as told by the victor".

Yeah, that quote has been attributed to various people (including Winston Churchill). But it's a common enough idea—that those with political power use history for propagandistic purposes by not giving their opponents the space to tell their own stories.

"The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice." - Mark Twain

So how can we expect that we have a one correct version of any historical event of something that happened several hundred years ago?

You don't. We believe the history that we believe because of the community we come out of. It's a matter of intersubjectivity.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Yeah, that quote has been attributed to various people (including Winston Churchill). But it's a common enough idea—that those with political power use history for propagandistic purposes by not giving their opponents the space to tell their own stories.

"The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice." - Mark Twain



You don't. We believe the history that we believe because of the community we come out of. It's a matter of intersubjectivity.

Exactly. One such example is the actual cause of the American Civil War. Depending upon which side of the Mason Dixon line you were raised...you could have very differing opinions as to why it was fought.

I was raised here in North Carolina and I have always been taught (not necessarily in school) that the war was fought over the issue of individual states' rights. Slavery just happened to be one of the things that was being affected...but it wasn't the root cause. I'm certain that there are many people who were taught that it was all about ending slavery.

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by Leboman

Exactly. One such example is the actual cause of the American Civil War. Depending upon which side of the Mason Dixon line you were raised...you could have very differing opinions as to why it was fought.

I was raised here in North Carolina and I have always been taught (not necessarily in school) that the war was fought over the issue of individual states' rights. Slavery just happened to be one of the things that was being affected...but it wasn't the root cause. I'm certain that there are many people who were taught that it was all about ending slavery.

True - with an Australian education, with a very perhipery touch on US history, I learnt that it was over slavery. But then more recently things I've read have been that slavery was just one issue etc.

[JerryLove]

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." - Napoleon

Odd: I've always heard it as “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” I wonder if they are two different sayings by the same man, or if one (or both) just aren't historically correct.

I was raised here in North Carolina and I have always been taught (not necessarily in school) that the war was fought over the issue of individual states' rights. Slavery just happened to be one of the things that was being affected...but it wasn't the root cause. I'm certain that there are many people who were taught that it was all about ending slavery.

No data exists to draw even statistical inference as to what the individual southerner thought in regards to supporting secession... but the state governments actually wrote declarations of the causes of succession.

So there is at least an official reason for secession (well, one document for each state).
Here's Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas - Declaration of Causes of Secession

Of course: the official reason we went into Iraq was because of WMDs.... so I'll leave it to the reader to decide the veracity of any stated declaration.

I don't want to start a Palin bashing thread here, that's not really the point.

I will say that I don't care that she juxtaposed some facts. Not a big deal. What bugs me is that, rather than simply correct later; she attempted to make the fub "new history".

[Ridley's Own]

There's some really disturbing things on this thread...

There's a huge difference between revising history in the face of new knowledge or evidence, and "revisionism" as a political tool. For example, there's a lot of discussion in Holocaust scholarship on functionalism vs. intentionalism; whether or not there was a master plan for the extermination of the Jews from the outset or whether it developed naturally from "below." If there came to the surface some document indicating that Hitler definitively had a master plan for extermination prior to 1939, then that would settle the debate, and books would need to be revised accordingly.

What is not up for debate is whether or not a policy of extermination of European Jewry existed in Nazi Germany. Or that gas chambers at Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor, Belzec and Auschwitz-Birkenau existed and operated.

To argue otherwise is "revisionism." It's changing history to meet a particular political end, in this case, the handwashing of the Nazis. Adopting a cyincal approach to "history is written by the victors" is foolish, because it allows the Nazis to re-incinerate people's grandmothers. Either they attempted to eradicate European Jewry or they didn't. There's no real room for postmodern wishy-washy-ness when we're talking the deaths of 6 million.

I don't think Sarah Palin is a historical revisionist. I think she's a dilettante. She plays at being a politician, rather than actually being one, so when she becomes embroiled in an obvious mistake, she can't back out of it without damaging her image. That's a lesser sin than simply shrugging shoulders and accepting that politicians lie.

[ICallHimTurtle]

There are some (and I'm not saying here that I am one of these) that even still write books declaring or teach thier children that the Holocaust was a fabrication.

Five hundred years from now, people will have in each hand one book that says the direct opposite of another.

A thousand years from now, the "truth" will be decided based on how many written accounts of which opinion survive.

*I* know it happened. I've touched ID numbers. But a thousand years from now, what the human race will have is what we've left behind, and they'll interpret it to fit thier own end. And there isn't really a whole lot we can do about it.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Adopting a cyincal approach to "history is written by the victors" is foolish, because it allows the Nazis to re-incinerate people's grandmothers.

I hear what you're saying but why is that cynical? I thought it would more rightly be called a critical approach to recognize that it happens.