Notices
Results 1 to 41 of 41
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Selene
  • 1 Post By stander-j
  • 1 Post By shlunka

Thread: How Innacurate is History?

  1. #1 How Innacurate is History? 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,455
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    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


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: How Innacurate is History? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,455
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    A historians biggest job is sifting through these problems, systematically and as truthful as possible with the evidence given
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: How Innacurate is History? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    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.
    There are different types of historian.

    You have the historian that predominantly studies primary sources and presents unbiased facts.

    You have historians who study primary and then secondary to determine if other historians agree and then attempts to presents the unbiased facts

    Then you have some historians that then attempt to fill in the gaps based on intelligent analysis of the available facts. The good historians who do this make perfectly clear which is fact and which is speculation.

    Then you have historical novelists who present facts through research but then turn the facts into fiction by embellishing the truth with fantasy and drama in order to increase readership.

    The best history books are always those with the biggest references to primary sources with an author who tells the truth by identifying fact from fiction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    There are different types of historian.

    You have the historian that predominantly studies primary sources and presents unbiased facts.

    You have historians who study primary and then secondary to determine if other historians agree and then attempts to presents the unbiased facts

    Then you have some historians that then attempt to fill in the gaps based on intelligent analysis of the available facts. The good historians who do this make perfectly clear which is fact and which is speculation.

    Then you have historical novelists who present facts through research but then turn the facts into fiction by embellishing the truth with fantasy and drama in order to increase readership.

    The best history books are always those with the biggest references to primary sources with an author who tells the truth by identifying fact from fiction.
    Then there's the historian, employed or issued grants by the regimes in power. The one who will write whatever they're told to write. The party line guy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    most (the grand majority) of historians working at colleges and universities do not get grants to do their research.

    Also every since James Loewen "Lies My Teacher Told Me" historians have been on a real revisionist streak often writing history from the perspective of the "losers" as was put earlier

    and it is not a bad thing that history continues to be rewritten, it is a process of correction and specialization, historians are becoming more and more specialized also, history changes as we change because history is the story of ____ and as whatever you put in their changes in either nature, direction or situation the importance and relevance of past events shift around in relation to the new situation

    History is a scholarly art as i have heard many put it. Are art forms from the past no longer popular wrong? no, just lacking relevance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    There are no unbiased facts.

    Merely the selection of a certain fact or facts to support your historical writings is already an example of bias.

    Historical writing isn't supposed to be unbiased.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    There are no unbiased facts.

    Merely the selection of a certain fact or facts to support your historical writings is already an example of bias.

    Historical writing isn't supposed to be unbiased.
    Don't agree with you there sorry Spurious

    As a student of History i am encouraged to shelve personal opinion in order not to bias the research.

    The whole point of historical research an a scholarly basis is to remove the bias and get as close to the truth as is possible.

    A good historian attempts to uncover everything about a particular period in a cold and clinical fashion and should in no way become inflamed at the nazi's for their actions or at the Jews for what they suffered when researching this evidence.

    A good historian knows that the judgement and evaluation of these facts will always cloud the truth because these judgements will come from a particular modern perspective that might have nothing to do with a particular era.

    For example i will understand nothing of the Roman games if i turn away in disgust at their nature. They were a popular form of entertainment at the time for Roman families.
    mikepotter84 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    If it ain't on paper, its chinese whispers.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    There are no unbiased facts.

    Merely the selection of a certain fact or facts to support your historical writings is already an example of bias.

    Historical writing isn't supposed to be unbiased.
    Don't agree with you there sorry Spurious

    As a student of History i am encouraged to shelve personal opinion in order not to bias the research.

    The whole point of historical research an a scholarly basis is to remove the bias and get as close to the truth as is possible.

    A good historian attempts to uncover everything about a particular period in a cold and clinical fashion and should in no way become inflamed at the nazi's for their actions or at the Jews for what they suffered when researching this evidence.

    A good historian knows that the judgement and evaluation of these facts will always cloud the truth because these judgements will come from a particular modern perspective that might have nothing to do with a particular era.

    For example i will understand nothing of the Roman games if i turn away in disgust at their nature. They were a popular form of entertainment at the time for Roman families.
    As an ex-PhD student in the history of science I disagree with you.

    bye bye authority argument.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Hotter issue, less clarity. Everybody's got an angle on the Holocaust. We're supposed to.

    You can find truth where there is disinterest. Pile up these unembellished facts, induce from there if all else is rickety.

    I read a history of snowmen. The author, I trust, entertained no delusions about snowmen. Though I seem to remember some bit about snowmen at Auschwitz...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    There are no unbiased facts.

    Merely the selection of a certain fact or facts to support your historical writings is already an example of bias.

    Historical writing isn't supposed to be unbiased.
    Don't agree with you there sorry Spurious

    As a student of History i am encouraged to shelve personal opinion in order not to bias the research.

    The whole point of historical research an a scholarly basis is to remove the bias and get as close to the truth as is possible.

    A good historian attempts to uncover everything about a particular period in a cold and clinical fashion and should in no way become inflamed at the nazi's for their actions or at the Jews for what they suffered when researching this evidence.

    A good historian knows that the judgement and evaluation of these facts will always cloud the truth because these judgements will come from a particular modern perspective that might have nothing to do with a particular era.

    For example i will understand nothing of the Roman games if i turn away in disgust at their nature. They were a popular form of entertainment at the time for Roman families.
    As an ex-PhD student in the history of science I disagree with you.

    bye bye authority argument.
    Then you should know better?

    If you are only going to select 'certain' facts to support an argument then you were better off becoming either a politician, a philosopher or a fiction writer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    There are different types of historian.

    You have the historian that predominantly studies primary sources and presents unbiased facts.

    You have historians who study primary and then secondary to determine if other historians agree and then attempts to presents the unbiased facts

    Then you have some historians that then attempt to fill in the gaps based on intelligent analysis of the available facts. The good historians who do this make perfectly clear which is fact and which is speculation.

    Then you have historical novelists who present facts through research but then turn the facts into fiction by embellishing the truth with fantasy and drama in order to increase readership.

    The best history books are always those with the biggest references to primary sources with an author who tells the truth by identifying fact from fiction.
    Then there's the historian, employed or issued grants by the regimes in power. The one who will write whatever they're told to write. The party line guy.
    The trouble with most academic pursuits is that they don't generate their own income. Somebody else has to pay for it, and they tend to base their decision partly or fully on self interest.

    Basically, historical research is most likely to be done if its conclusions will serve the interests of somebody rich and powerful. It's not about corrupt historians. It's about natural selection. The uncorrupt ones never get funding, and therefore don't get heard.

    Of course, I don't mean to say that you have to absolutely corrupt to get funding, but you might have to deal with some moral ambiguities sometimes. Claims that favour your patron tend to require slightly less substantiation than claims that go against them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,455
    Ok, just for grins, let's suppose you the historian uncovered irrefutable evidence that no Jews were exterminated during WWII (with apologies to my Jewish friends) and you're employer is Jewish. What do you write?

    I know this is an extreme example of what could happen but even if the truth is slightly altered to suit an employer by every historian then there is no history book worth trusting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Ok, just for grins, let's suppose you the historian uncovered irrefutable evidence that no Jews were exterminated during WWII (with apologies to my Jewish friends) and you're employer is Jewish. What do you write?
    The truth of course.

    I would simply be a shallow narrow minded self-serving cowardly ignorant scum bag if i tainted the truth just to protect my own interests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Ok, just for grins, let's suppose you the historian uncovered irrefutable evidence that no Jews were exterminated during WWII (with apologies to my Jewish friends) and you're employer is Jewish. What do you write?

    I know this is an extreme example of what could happen but even if the truth is slightly altered to suit an employer by every historian then there is no history book worth trusting.

    I think it's usually more subtle, Selene. If you find evidence that makes it say 20% likely no jews were killed, and see a potential trail that might lead to more such evidence, maybe you overlook that trail.

    If you find something that makes it 20% that twice the accepted number were killed in some still-unknown concentration camps, with a potential trail to follow, I'm sure you'd spare no expense to follow it.

    Now, if you accidentally stumbled upon absolutely irrefutable evidence there was no holocaust, I think you'd hold back whatever you had to right now, then gradually work your way out from under that patron so you could publish your findings somewhere else.

    Of course, you'd have to accidentally stumble upon it in order to ever find it, because you'd never be deliberately looking for evidence of something your patron didn't approve of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Chilakaluripet,Guntur(District),Andhra Pradesh(State),India
    Posts
    56
    IT IS SAID "HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY VICTORS HISTORY IS FILLED WITH LIARS" but there are reliable true historians these days who research throughout their lives for finding truth and uncovering it u may never heard of them since it is opposed to political views of victors they and their works are oppressed.I will write about some of them example: ALEX HALEY(ROOTS),HOWARD FAST(SPARTACUS)etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    853
    It's important to note that while the Victors do indeed write the history... They themselves eventually become the losers, and the way it looks (taking into account the "history" and the history of Africa) we're looking at trend that removes the bias. In fact, if you take a history course - the first thing you'll probably learn about is the principles and ethics by behind contemporary research of history.
    Ascended likes this.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    How should I know, I've only read historically inaccurate history books.
    mikepotter84 likes this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman Beyondthought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    46
    Just another example of the thousands: the scribes of Karank, loyal to the cult of Amun-Ra, wrote that Akhenaten was a heretic for wanting to worship solely the Aten. However, looking at Egypt's long history of religious hierarchy, the priest's were always looking for the 'King God'. First they raise Horus to the top, than Ra, then Ptah, then back to Ra, then Amun, then Amun-Ra... The point is Akhenaten was simply trying to do what his people were doing for generations and that was to push their religion forward to the new King God and it was believed that it was Aten. But this meant the cult of Amun-Ra would lose power and their wealth..... and well we know what happens from here.

    The same thing rings true with what happened in New York on that horrible day in September. The truth will come out in 50 or so years; just like it did for Pearl Harbor. The point is that Yes, absolutely historical records are twisted and inaccurate to a certain degree.

    Just for a personal example. When I was 12 I moved from a wealthy city in my home state to a less privileged city. When I arrived at the new school it was at the end of the year so I was exempt from the final exams. Although my history teacher still wanted me to review the test to simply know what they had learned. This teacher had a question that read: From which of the Following Empires was Christopher Columbus granted an expeditionary convoy to search for the New World? It as a multiple choice answer and He had it marked as England. I told him he was wrong and needless to say this did not go over well. My point is that every student who passed through his halls now believes that Christopher Columbus was given three ships with Spanish names from the King of England.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by charvaka View Post
    IT IS SAID "HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY VICTORS HISTORY IS FILLED WITH LIARS" but there are reliable true historians these days who research throughout their lives for finding truth and uncovering it u may never heard of them since it is opposed to political views of victors they and their works are oppressed.I will write about some of them example: ALEX HALEY(ROOTS),HOWARD FAST(SPARTACUS)etc.
    You seem to be confusing history and fiction.

    And I don't know why you say "[you] may never heard of them since it is opposed to political views of victors they and their works are oppressed" when, for example, the novel Roots was hugely popular, spent weeks on The New York Times Best Seller List, was made into a TV series and movie.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Chilakaluripet,Guntur(District),Andhra Pradesh(State),India
    Posts
    56
    i know roots is a popular book but i am saying about other books like BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE and PEOPLES HISTORY OF AMERICA etc and also INDIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE BY E.M.S.NAMBOODRIPAD AND WRITERS LIKE HOWARD JINN and and Some book about genghis khan(I can't remember the name exactly i read translation of it)by Henry.h.Howorth.you may have the books but they are not popular in culture and about history and fiction thing those fiction works are based on so much research of history they are reconstructions of history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    History is at best a biased version of events. Many years ago my History 101 teacher began the year with an introduction and a statement, "I am here to teach you World Histry(his pronunciation) ,......but first I must un-learn the version that has been taught you in HS". He did a good job showing us how wrong our previous teachings were, but then he commenced to do the same thing, he just taught a different version, which was probably closer to the truth , but, ....since then I have found many problems with it. One big problem with HS history is that most of the books are chosen by the Texas School Board, ...yes... I said Texas. Now you can see an immediate problem already, right? Texas is religious. The TSB recently changed to another History text to eliminate Thomas Jefferson from the History taught. Hilarious, and ironic, because they did it for the wrong reasons. Blacks can tell you quickly how far off the History books are. If you want Christian version of History then several countries can fit that bill. During my lifetime I see big problems, starting with JFK, and then the assassination, Nixon, Clintons, GWB, the VietNam War, and more. Then you have the "Political Correct" influence. I don't believe that History can be non biased. Even if you lived the event, it's biased, simple because Mankind can not do a complete 100% unbiased.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Hard to tell, go read a history book......
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    History is at best a biased version of events. Many years ago my History 101 teacher began the year with an introduction and a statement, "I am here to teach you World Histry(his pronunciation) ,......but first I must un-learn the version that has been taught you in HS". He did a good job showing us how wrong our previous teachings were, but then he commenced to do the same thing, he just taught a different version, which was probably closer to the truth , but, ....since then I have found many problems with it. One big problem with HS history is that most of the books are chosen by the Texas School Board, ...yes... I said Texas. Now you can see an immediate problem already, right? Texas is religious. The TSB recently changed to another History text to eliminate Thomas Jefferson from the History taught. Hilarious, and ironic, because they did it for the wrong reasons. Blacks can tell you quickly how far off the History books are. If you want Christian version of History then several countries can fit that bill. During my lifetime I see big problems, starting with JFK, and then the assassination, Nixon, Clintons, GWB, the VietNam War, and more. Then you have the "Political Correct" influence. I don't believe that History can be non biased. Even if you lived the event, it's biased, simple because Mankind can not do a complete 100% unbiased.

    It is sometimes quite hard to really see a specific 'perspective' from which a historical article may have been written, this is especially so when comes to articles written in a style or manner that may support our own viewpoints or preconceptions. Each of us does have a particular viewpoint though, we all have a nationality and whenever we write something at least some of this has an effect on the style in which may write. I think it really is quite hard to find a truely independant or non biased article because of this, but we can do is to read about a particular subject or particular events written by people of different nationalities, people that write with different styles. This is important in helping us to seperate the facts from opinions and to spot the inconsistancies. So yes whilst it may be near impossible to illiminate our own bias, what we can do through broadening our horizons is to become more aware of them, so that we are being quite 'as' influenced by owns prejudices.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    A cyborg Werwolf xDARTHWOLFx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    I live on planet Earth. in the Milky Way.
    Posts
    51
    the government is changing history and lying to make themselves look good.
    Don't argue with me. You will lose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,820
    One comment: history is 100% accurate.
    There may, however, be some faults or bias in the recording and reporting of it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    I trust History books over works of fiction at least. Major events such as wars and dates laws were enacted were recorded as well as backed up by archaeological remains for the most part. We can know the basic facts; the interpretation of the facts is where you enter a grey area. But no, no one is going to make up imaginary wars or imaginary laws, etc in an historical work, if that's what you mean, OP.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    344
    Also, if History were so biased and selective, how would controversial material ever arise? I mean, Eisenhower's covert CIA overthrow of Mosaddegh? If only those in power had control of the media, perhaps History would be a lie. But people are often killed for writing works which illuminate the true inner working of a society. Recording History is vital to many for the purpose of getting the truth out because there is no other way. Also, in America, History is especially unbiased (among professional Historians who don't have an axe to grind politically) because of our free press rights and multiple viewpoints being allowed to be expressed.

    For some reason I can't unbold this..anyone know why? I copy and pasted only one word, the name "Mosaddegh", which was bolded and now the entirety of my message is in bold font...oh well...
    Last edited by mikepotter84; June 25th, 2013 at 04:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •