posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 05:54 PM
It's true that a lot of people in the earlier times were illiterate, which is why many of the first person records that we have now are from the
people in positions of wealth or power. In a way, this obviously gives off a skewed impression of the time period, but I think there are enough
observations of life in general in those records that allow for some semblance at a well-rounded understanding of a civilization.
As for the deletion of parts of history from books - perhaps it's naive of me to say this (I know that I have a really optimistic point of view on
history, which is wrong at times), but I wouldn't attribute stories like the British being drunkards or members of Congress praying "disappearing"
from history textbooks to a human decision to erase these parts of history from the collective consciousness. (Actually I'm pretty sure that Congress
still has prayers now, though I could be wrong.) The fact is, that in a micro scheme, every person to have ever lived, every miniscule event that has
ever happened, every word that has ever been said matters. A history book can't record all of them, regardless of the fact that the record of
human existence is basically a circumstance following a set of previous circumstances, ad infinitum.
I often feel frustrated at history textbooks mainly because they refuse to acknowledge the above fact. A lot of them give off the impression that the
"major" events are the only important ones. They go through decades in a paragraph, which is incredibly disappointing. I understand that they can't
cover everything, but I think what they should do is acknowledge the incredible scope of history and encourage people to seek out more about