| Author |
Message
|
| zinjanthropos |
 Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: How Innacurate is History? |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Posts: 870
Location: Driving in my car
|
Do the victorious shape history? Do governments shape history? How much of history is BS? How about Hollywood's influence?
Canadian history books say the telephone was invented by Mr. Bell in the town of Brantford Ontario. USA history books say the telephone was invented in Boston by the same guy. I've read that Scotland claims to be the country of this invention's origin. Then again it wasn't Bell but some Italian guy named Meucci who invented it. If you Google you'll find other inventors. Anyway just an example.
When it comes to history who do you believe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| marnixR |
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2379
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
when asked how he thought history would judge him, Winston Churchill said he had no worries "because I will write the book"
it is indeed the winners who set the tone of what the history books write - sometimes the distortion is innocuous, sometimes less so, but there will always be a local bias
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
Indeed History is to be taken with a grain of salt, for not only are we subjected to outright false information, but more importantly to misleading ommissions, information that if known would change our perspective on our history and present reality (as Orwell said in 1984 those that control the past control the present and the future).
Its not just governments that alter history, organizations also play a role.
In the US, the Elite in the first half of the 20th century established Fundations, which had among other goals the mission to reshape history (presumably to consolidate the elites power over the people), no one can know what it is they have erased from history because we only know about the official history. Some tidbits that are not generally known are that the Great Depression caused massive popular uprisings that threatened capitalism and corporations, there was also an attempted coup d'etat in the 30s by industrialists, and the extent to which elites have controled the media with planted stories and editors on the take is also not part of the official history, there's the way in which the Fed Reserve was established thats also shady. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: How Innacurate is History? |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 556
Location: Montreal
|
| zinjanthropos wrote: |
Do the victorious shape history? Do governments shape history? How much of history is BS? How about Hollywood's influence?
Canadian history books say the telephone was invented by Mr. Bell in the town of Brantford Ontario. USA history books say the telephone was invented in Boston by the same guy. I've read that Scotland claims to be the country of this invention's origin. Then again it wasn't Bell but some Italian guy named Meucci who invented it. If you Google you'll find other inventors. Anyway just an example.
When it comes to history who do you believe? |
The telephone thing is a bit ridiculous lol, Bell was born in Scotland but moved to Canada because his brother had respiratory problems. He eventually became a Canadian citizen. His mother was deaf so he worked a lot on issues to do with sound. Eventually marrying the deaf daughter of a very rich man in Boston, and became an American citizen. He probably did a lot of work on the telephone in both Canada and the USA, but his breakthrough was reportedly in his lab in Boston. He then retired in Canada after WW2. Bell's multinational heritage has caused those three countries to claim him as their own.
The Italian guy invented a communications system which was based on carrying sound down a wire, but Bell was the first to actually build a true functioning telephone as we perceive them today.
Often you have to delve deeper, and never trust history that lacks real proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zinjanthropos |
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Posts: 870
Location: Driving in my car
|
Doesn't matter about Bell, the point is no two history books seem to say the same. If it's not telephones then it's something else.
Let's say the Nazi's had won WWII, would we be reading about Germany and their role in the holocaust? I doubt it. You can tell just by listening to any news broadcast that if it involves the government than the truth is slightly jaded.
This China-Tibet thing that's going on right now,,,,who's casualty figures are you going to believe? Whoever comes out ahead in that one will write their own version of history and the loser their's. Historical accounts are not to be taken as gospel. To which even the gospels, I'm afraid, are subject to this cloud of uncertainty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ishmaelblues |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 61
|
| A historians biggest job is sifting through these problems, systematically and as truthful as possible with the evidence given |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zinjanthropos |
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Posts: 870
Location: Driving in my car
|
| ishmaelblues wrote: |
| A historians biggest job is sifting through these problems, systematically and as truthful as possible with the evidence given |
Historically speaking, you're sure that's how historians have handled it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 556
Location: Montreal
|
| zinjanthropos wrote: |
| ishmaelblues wrote: |
| A historians biggest job is sifting through these problems, systematically and as truthful as possible with the evidence given |
Historically speaking, you're sure that's how historians have handled it? |
If it was then there would be a lot of unemployed historians out there in the world, if history didn't keep changing they would have nothing to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dimension |
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 83
Location: Canada
|
History is always written by the victors. Because the losers are usually dead. So of course history is coloured by the perspective of whom ever wrote it. How ever if you read things from every point of view you will notice some things that are the same and some things that are different, usually the things that are the same are probably true and that is where you will find the truth(or at least the closest you can find) of the whole story.
_________________
"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zinjanthropos |
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Posts: 870
Location: Driving in my car
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy wrote: |
| zinjanthropos wrote: |
| ishmaelblues wrote: |
| A historians biggest job is sifting through these problems, systematically and as truthful as possible with the evidence given |
Historically speaking, you're sure that's how historians have handled it? |
If it was then there would be a lot of unemployed historians out there in the world, if history didn't keep changing they would have nothing to do. |
That's not what I'm saying....let me put it this way....If history is a pile of BS and you and your ilk are entrusted with sorting out the truth then how do we know we can trust all the historians since antiquity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Selene |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 1060
Location: I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
|
Thank goodness for Histories sake there will always be serious scholars who are prepared to sift through all the sources available in the quest of nailing the truth.
The biggest problem to the historians is the fallibility of memory. Primary sources aren't called 'primary' for nothing!
One of the requirements during any historical research is the shelving of bias and suspension of opinions.
Any so called 'historian' that doesn't do this, is either ignorant or a political sock puppet.
_________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I love a bit of SLAP & TICKLE
You Tickle
I'll Slap
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4414
Location: Scotland
|
| zinjanthropos wrote: |
| This China-Tibet thing that's going on right now,,,,who's casualty figures are you going to believe? Whoever comes out ahead in that one will write their own version of history and the loser their's. Historical accounts are not to be taken as gospel. |
Yet the casualty figures would be objectively determinable through an anlysis of hospital records, death certificates, etc. If the history is written by scholars disconnected through geography, allegiance, or time with either of the protagonists then a reasonable measure of objectivity can be expected.
As Selene has observed the key is to seek out primary sources.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zinjanthropos |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 11 Dec 2005
Posts: 870
Location: Driving in my car
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| If the history is written by scholars disconnected through geography, allegiance, or time with either of the protagonists then a reasonable measure of objectivity can be expected. |
A reasonable measure of objectivity suggests that the truth historians pen is nothing more than an agreed consensus, hardly 100% accurate. However they may be as close to the truth as they can get. Is it reasonable to assume then that no account of history is totally accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: How Innacurate is History? |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 919
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy wrote: |
| zinjanthropos wrote: |
Do the victorious shape history? Do governments shape history? How much of history is BS? How about Hollywood's influence?
Canadian history books say the telephone was invented by Mr. Bell in the town of Brantford Ontario. USA history books say the telephone was invented in Boston by the same guy. I've read that Scotland claims to be the country of this invention's origin. Then again it wasn't Bell but some Italian guy named Meucci who invented it. If you Google you'll find other inventors. Anyway just an example.
When it comes to history who do you believe? |
The telephone thing is a bit ridiculous lol, Bell was born in Scotland but moved to Canada because his brother had respiratory problems. He eventually became a Canadian citizen. His mother was deaf so he worked a lot on issues to do with sound. Eventually marrying the deaf daughter of a very rich man in Boston, and became an American citizen. He probably did a lot of work on the telephone in both Canada and the USA, but his breakthrough was reportedly in his lab in Boston. He then retired in Canada after WW2. Bell's multinational heritage has caused those three countries to claim him as their own.
The Italian guy invented a communications system which was based on carrying sound down a wire, but Bell was the first to actually build a true functioning telephone as we perceive them today.
Often you have to delve deeper, and never trust history that lacks real proof. |
So Scottland claims he'd already invented the telephone by the time he reached Canada. Canada claims he'd already done so before moving to Boston, and the USA claims he waited until he lived in Boston.
Who really knows which is true? He probably applied for the patent in the USA first, but who knows when he thought it up?
| zinjanthropos wrote: |
Doesn't matter about Bell, the point is no two history books seem to say the same. If it's not telephones then it's something else.
Let's say the Nazi's had won WWII, would we be reading about Germany and their role in the holocaust? I doubt it. You can tell just by listening to any news broadcast that if it involves the government than the truth is slightly jaded.
This China-Tibet thing that's going on right now,,,,who's casualty figures are you going to believe? Whoever comes out ahead in that one will write their own version of history and the loser their's. Historical accounts are not to be taken as gospel. To which even the gospels, I'm afraid, are subject to this cloud of uncertainty. |
Well, I'm pretty sure we'd find the USA wasn't entirely innocent of any role in some of the bigger genocides of Africa. The Germans of the day in WW II mostly didn't know the jews were being killed at all. They were told the trains were just carrying them out of the country to deport them. If Eisenhower and company hadn't invited in the film crews, we might still not be getting that picture.
So.... good point.
There are other factors, though, than just who wins. The reason Genghis Khan got made out to be such a sinister character probably had more to do with the degree to which his enemies were literate and his allies weren't, as opposed to him losing. He really didn't lose very much in his lifetime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4414
Location: Scotland
|
| zinjanthropos wrote: |
| A reasonable measure of objectivity suggests that the truth historians pen is nothing more than an agreed consensus, hardly 100% accurate. However they may be as close to the truth as they can get. Is it reasonable to assume then that no account of history is totally accurate? |
That would be my thinking. I see it as analagous to, but not identical to science. The 'truths' of science are always provisional. We seek to approach 100% accuracy, but recognise that that may be unattainable.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
