History: "The Conspiracy that Will Not Die" -- Written by the Winners, For the Winners.

"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity."
Roy P. Basler

" History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions."
Voltaire

"History is now strictly organized, powerfully disciplined, but it possesses only a modest educational value and even less conscious social purpose."
J. H. Plumb

"God alone knows the future, but only an historian can alter the past."
Ambrose Bierce

"History is a myth that men agree to believe."
Napoleon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is said that "history is written by the winners". While this concept is a sad one, I find it hard to deny.

Whether you are talking about the history of the "Civil War" or the history of a certain member of society (Lincoln, for example. To stay on the Civil War track), can it really be disputed that certain facts have been withheld in order to shine a positive light on those that were the "winners" of their day and a negative one on the "losers".

As an example (and sticking to the Civil War theme for convenience), let's talk about Lincoln. He is, to this day, remembered as the "Great Emancipator" and friend of the black race (of his day). His "Emancipation Proclamation" is still looked at the document that freed America's slaves and his fight against the evils of slavery in the South have earned him his place in history.

But, how and why do we know these things? Are they fact because they were written by man? What indisputable method do we have to PROVE these things? Even the Emancipation Proclamation, while we do indeed have the actual document, does that prove to us that the practice was actually adhered to by it's "supporters"? The answer is no. While we do have documentation that speaks of the greatness of the Proclamation and of Lincoln himself, how do we really KNOW that this documentation wasn't written by staunch supporters of Lincoln with the intention of doing nothing but deifying him?

Using that same logic, what would history tell us now had the South won the "war"? Likely you would read about the South's desires to educate the slaves prior to releasing them and how the North, in an act of imperialistic aggression, waged war on the South with the goal of wiping them out and reestablishing the American Empire. In turn, Lincoln would also likely be remembered as the war monger who wanted to rid the United States of any African presence. Had the South won the "war", you would likely hear the following quotes on the History channel, as opposed to the ones you hear today.

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”
A. Lincoln - Upon hearing the decision in the Dred Scott case.

---

"I will say here while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position."
A. Lincoln - Debate August 21, 1858


Indeed, had the South won the war, these "quotes" would likely be accepted and perpetuated as FACT and Lincoln would likely be looked at as one of the worst bigots to fill the office of President of the United States. However, does that make ANY of these "quotes" actual fact? I say no. They are not fact because none of us were there to actually hear them. They very well could be altered quotations intended to undermine Lincoln and his "good deeds" while in office. However, the same can be said for presently accepted "history" of Lincoln.


History is undoubtedly written with a bias in favor of the victor.


The above is simply an example of what things MAY have been like. However, the same can likely be said for almost EVERY aspect of our history be it religious history, national history or even personal history.

Would the winner of any situation not take the advantage of their victory to record a history that favors them? Isn't it human nature for us to "hide our flaws and accentuate our positives"?



This being what it is, how can we truly trust history? It is also said that "those who do not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it." But, how can we learn from the aspects of history that we can NEVER be certain of? If anything, history can only be taken with a heavy dose of faith and a grain of salt.

Perhaps we are actually better off to abandon the search for our history in favor of looking at the present. Maybe the only real way can actually change things is to watch how they are currently being done and find and eradicate the aspects that are not befitting of the society, as a whole, that we want.


Well, how does all this pertain to conspiracy "theory"? Well, I personally feel that the reason conspiracy theory has gotten such a bad name is because the "non-believers" KNOW that there is no way to definitively prove the past. They have no concern when it comes to speaking of past conspiracies because they are confident that we, as believers, can only really offer supportive evidence without any actual "proof". This, in my opinion, is the reason you see so many conspiracy related threads break down into a "well show me PROOF! - hey, that's not proof!" issue. However, these exact same people don't seem to realize that, if the tables are turned, they would be stuck in the exact same position of having evidence but nothing that can ever be really PROVEN to the masses as FACT. Many people use this shield of "credibility" to hide behind and throw their own "theories" (yes that's what they are) right back at the believers. If you think about it, it's often very sad to see the lengths of these certain "double standards" will go be it from the "believer" or "nonbeliever".

In truth, history is only 100% to those that experienced it first hand. To everyone else, it's merely conjecture. Any account taken 2nd or 3rd hand must be taken with a reasonable amount of faith.



Jasn

Originally posted by SimiusDei
Any account taken 2nd or 3rd hand must be taken with a reasonable amount of faith.

Exactly. If you believe something is true just because a "reputable" source says so, how easy can they deceive you if they want to?


[edit on 29/10/07 by NuclearPaul]

I think Napoleon said it best. "History is a myth that men agree to believe."

Conspiracy theories are an alternative to history you are force fed by universities and media. A dangerous man is one who brushes off all conspiracy theories as crazy b/c either he knows they are in fact alt-history or he is so clueless he actually believes that they are crazy.

If the British had won the war, Washington would have forever been known as a traitor in the British history books. The history books of the future will be written by the rich.

The real conspiracy is, why do so many people look down on conspiracies? I believe it is b/c the majority of people unknowingly WANT to be force fed history.

Really good thread btw

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Techsnow]

reply to post by Techsnow


I agree. There is no real reason to look upon the conspiracy theorist as a lunatic as some do. In 99% of the cases, CTs are not doing anything but trying to find the truth for themselves because they can't shake the feeling that what they are being told is false.

I would be willing to bet that 99.9% of our history is flawed, if not all out false.

Jasn

reply to post by NuclearPaul


Very easily, which is the plan (I believe).

As I asked the other day (and no I wasn't answered), what exactly makes a source "reputable"?


Jasn

Originally posted by Techsnow



The real conspiracy is, why do so many people look down on conspiracies? I believe it is b/c the majority of people unknowingly WANT to be force fed history.



[edit on 29-10-2007 by Techsnow]

I think you are correct. It is much, much easier to be fed the truth. Life is complicated and there are two sides to every story. Simple people seem to put all of their emotions into believing what they are told and dismissing any opposing viewpoint. They feel challenged when you propose something different and refuse to acknowledge any deviation from what they have been told.

Sadly though, I think that there are offenders on both sides of the fence. While there are a large majority that believe history books like gospel, without questioning what / why things may have really happened. You also have the crowd that only believe their conspiracy and refuse to acknowledge anything that the other side brings to the table.

This thread does really make you wonder what the history books will say about the current administration, the Iraq war, 9/11..... in 50 years or so. Like you said though, history is written by the winners. So, if things don't change, we will be reading how wonderful GWB is, what a glowing success Iraq was...etc. Hey, at least in 50 years we should have a consensus reason for why we went to war with Iraq. I wonder what it will be though...?

reply to post by Karlhungis


Very true. All of this fits into my "Apathy is a disease!" category. It's actually pretty disturbing to think of how many people in this country feel the media is honest in their reporting.


Jasn

reply to post by SimiusDei

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”
A. Lincoln - Upon hearing the decision in the Dred Scott case.

That sounds like good hearted ignorance to me. Notice they were Africans, not African-Americans. It was a different time.

"I will say here while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position."
A. Lincoln - Debate August 21, 1858

That actually sounds to me like something he could have said. It was during a debate before he was president and sounds like the kind of thing you would say if you didn’t want to scare off conservative voters. I don’t think it being true would completely demean his character, or really demean it at all. Presidents have a tendency to tell the crowd what they want to hear during debates, during terms too. It comes with politics, there are a lot of crazy conservatives they need to tip-toe around.

They do sound bad though and that’s probably why I’ve never heard them, I think that is your point. That it is all biased and sometimes manipulated information. It is a good point. There are a lot of good theories that don’t get the necessary attention due to unsound “history”. If you deny yourself a stubborn point of view, the truth will always be more clear. I don’t really know how you would go about fixing it though, all you can really do is recognize it and not be duped. We force people to take firm sides on unsound ideas just to be heard because we are too stubborn with our history to listen properly.