Having Firm Beliefs about the Past is Ignorant.

The more I argue with my ex-, the more I can see that when something exists only in memory, it becomes very pliable and if you focus and consider some image long enough (minutes) you can easily begin to honestly think it's true, regardless of reality. People who share vivd, powerful experiences commonly have huge discrepancies in their recollections, even shortly after the event - not to mention years down the road. I'm saying this because there are no 1st hand accounts of any of the 1800's anylonger. Basically, whoever wants to write and publish about the 1800's controls history (within obvious limits). As such, why do we so steadfastly hold on to these beliefs about history which are derived from a pottery shard found in the Himalayas? You know what i mean? We put forth these (virtually) facts which determine the nature of the human population of the world across 10's/100's of thousands of years by analyzing a single skull and a thigh bone. They may be right, but really, give me a break.

We have no idea who we are or where we've been nor what we've done, save for the loosely supported story we read. The possibilities of what reality is/was are practically endless. To gradually change that story in drastic ways would be a small task compared to say, building a factory that can build motorcycles via automation. Can you grasp the detail that goes into that kind of insanity? Now apply that tenacity to social manipulation - kinda scary. So yeah, "Don't believe the hype." Don't disbelieve it necessarily either. Keep an open mind.

OPEN MINDS ARE SEXY!

[edit on 11/8/2008 by verbal kint]

This post belongs in the rant forum on BTS.

reply to post by verbal kint


there is a saying and i'm paraphrasing...history is always written by the winner, conquerer, people with the vast resources to make public or supress critical information, in all periods of human history. people with open minds and divergent views that would conflict, and possibly usurp the integrity and thus leadership of the current people in power, have to therefore be marginalized or eliminated.

reply to post by jimmyx


Your timing is flawless. That was kinda what it felt like was being done after reading the post prior to yours.
kinda ironic, huh ren?

Really though, how do you lose the story of the building of the pyramids? You'd think the last, skinny, old man who knew the methods used would grab the shirt of some kid standing next to his death bed, harshly pull him close enough to kiss, and after a blast of the old man's rancid breath and rotting teeth, the teen would shove him away saying,
"F off nasty old man! You stink!" and quickly exit the room.
Leaving behind the old man desperately rasping, "The Dukes! It was the Dukes. It was the Dukes..."
Well, I guess I answered my own question, youthful brashness let it slip through the cracks. How disheartening.

AND while we're on the rewriting of history, when exactly did Reagan become one of the 'Great Presidents'? Last I recall, he sank the population in debt and by the end of his stewardship he was really unpopular? I could be wrong but...?

Interestingly, looking back, did i have the information I have now, I probably would not have had many feelings at all about Reagan. I think I would have been more concerned that Bush Sr. was actually running the country throughout the Reagan years, a la Dick Cheney style.

[edit on 11/8/2008 by verbal kint]

[edit on 11/8/2008 by verbal kint]

In my opinion history is like a BIG fictional story book; whose author(s) held strong 'dark' motives and reasons to write certain things and avoid/erase others from the map & social consciousness.
I don't buy into anything that's given to me like "you have to believe in this, because it's the truth, it's what really happened". Yeah right...
What's the real truth behind most 'historical facts' .... Who wrote it?...
oh yeah: THEM.:

[edit on 8/11/08 by plutoxgirl]

Good post, OP. I think you’re spot on.

I would go so far as to apply your premise to all ‘knowledge’. How do we know that what the scientists are telling us is true unless we repeat the experiments ourselves? Science is just as subject to politics and other human vagaries as any other human endeavor. I think that every scientific ‘fact’ should bear the addendum, ‘to the best of our knowledge at this time.’

reply to post by resistor


...then I'll stroke yours.... lol amen, my friend. I agree unreservedly. I say take the stuff as far as you can. If you get to, "Is this REALLY me?" then you're getting close. ...Especially if your answer is no!

and man, i've been thinkin, suppose along with me that we (our consciousness, presents (yes spelled that way on purpose), etc are indeed just slaves to a greater consciousness. Created in his image, we also behave like him. That's why he gave us self-awareness. So that we can carry out more complex algorithmic instructions.

...awe, never mind, I passed out asleep. I guess this idea will be for another time. Regardless,
big love
-v

Well, I feel compelled to speak on behalf of my discipline, history. Most practicing historians you will come across today do not hold rigid views about the past. This is a common misconception born from, well, a history of generations of conservative, triumphalist, "grand narrative"-type historians, which have not been representative of the field at large since the 1960s and the "New Left" school of historical thought.

The history that is written today, and which has been written for the past few decades is not the so-called "history of the winners." As a matter of fact, most relevant historical efforts of the past decades have focused on those left out of the textbooks of the 1950s and earlier. Women's studies, histories of various minority groups, histories of the lower/working classes, and war histories told from the perspective of displaced persons are just a few of the fields which have become increasingly popular in mainstream history over the years.

There are biased historians, absolutely, and there are still a few kicking around who hold to the old Western-centric grand narrative approach of the past. As historians, we are constantly reminded of our own biases, and most of us, (while we often hold radical political views, generally left-wing in nature, myself included) we do try to be cautious and balanced in our accounts of various historical events. Can we ever know the full story of the past? Of course not, and I challenge you to find a reputable historian who would argue otherwise. We know it is a messy discipline, and I think that's what makes it more challenging. We strive towards ever more accurate and balanced descriptions of past events, but the real key point is interpretation. By its very nature, this is subjective, and you can never stick with just one historian's account of an event, and should keep in mind their biases. We do this through examining historiography - the history of the writing of history. It help keeps us humble and honest. We note how our predecessors crafted their narratives, and judge this in context.

It's not perfect, and at best gives us a clearer picture of what the past may have been like than we previously held. That is why history continues - not just because time moves on, but because there's never a final word on any historical event. There will always be another viewpoint, a challenge, and more data to be uncovered. We work to do the best we can with the evidence we can obtain. We are not agents of the establishment trying to paint a consciously-distorted view of past events. Perhaps prior historians were, but for any given event or series of events in human history, you will find a book on the subject which was written in the past 30 years, after the discipline trended towards a more nuanced, responsible, balanced, and even subversive approach to historical inquiry.

No historian worth his or her salt will claim to provide you with "the truth." They will present their interpretation of what they feel the given past event(s) may have been like, and what that might mean for our present and future. History helps connect us to what we perceive as having come before our own lifespans.

Just had to clarify for those not familiar with the field as it stands.

Thanks for that clarification. Looking back at my OP I do see an implication towards Historians (current & recent past) which was not intended but is there nonetheless. Interestingly, the consideration of current professionals/academics in the field did not cross my mind even once. I get the impression that there's more to this issue than simply my egotism/arrogance and lack of insight. unfortunately any reasonable theory eludes me for the moment. hmmm... Bueller? ... Bueller?