How Much of History is Bullshit?

I have no trouble with the accuracy of historical dates. I have no doubt about the existence of famous people of the past. However when we dig deeper, researching old texts and eyewitness accounts I have to admit I have have a hard time accepting the culled information as totally accurate. Historical information should never be taken as 100% accurate in my estimation. I feel this way because human beings tend to forget, make up or embellish the truth.

I could start a rumor one day and by the next day it is completely different. That doesn't bode well for any historical information handed down thru generations only to be penned by scribes. I don't want to demean any occupation dealing with history and wonder how historians feel about their subject's credibility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quite a lot of it is totally inaccurate. You see, this doesn't reduce the importance of, or demean, the field of history to all historians. The reason for this is simple: not all historians treat history as a science. Precision isn't that important to all. In fact, a great deal of historians treat history as a branch of literature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Never thought of history as literature. Does that mean non-fiction is a misnomer?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No... not quite. It all depends on whether or not it's considered true. If you know that it's not true, then it's fiction, of course. If you consider it to be true, it's non-fiction. This may sound weird to a culture that is obsessed with precision in history, but it's quite the common attitude throughout history (oddly enough).

History as literature is more about drawing lessons from history, rather than learning history for it's details. If you're illustrating a point that is meant more to teach the reader a lesson, then total accuracy is not important at all. Presentation becomes more important, in this instance.

 

That kind of reasoning and a trip to the religion section of this forum could make you a cult hero.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet a lot of fiction contains historical references. Its like we're living in a lie.

You intimate that any book containing historical references can never be considered accurate. That kind of thinking will also gain you notoriety in the religion section.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How much value is placed on hard evidence that supports history? Ironically there are people who dedicate their lives to better determining the truth of the past and yet have to depend on acceptance of their finds based on the inaccuracy of the historical data of the time period they're working on. If we have to weed through text to determine what's accurate and what's not then I really see the study of history as nothing more than a lesson in futility.

 

You misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying that historical information can never be considered accurate, but rather that any piece of historical information must be looked upon with a certain level of skepticism, because no matter how credible the source, or how supportive of archaeological evidence the information is, it can never be as precise as some people expect it to be.

What you don't seem to understand, and many people along with you, is that any historical account rests firmly upon the interpretation of the person giving the account. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased look at history, because everyone has their own unique viewpoint on whatever subject is being studied. Thus, there is no such thing as a totally reliable account.

All history is anecdotal, and all of the fields associated with history are merely supportive of this anecdotal evidence of events. What I was trying to illustrate was that, unlike a forensics expert investigating a crime, not all historians are concerned with unerring fidelity to the events, but only to give the reader a general sense of the implications of those events.

 

Nah, I knew what you meant. Actually the title of this thread suggests that some history may not be totally credible. My high school history teacher certainly never taught us as if we were to get something more cerebral from it besides remembering dates. I like the way you think history should be taught.

 

Oh. Well, yea. You're absolutely right. History is taught in a very sub-standard manner. When you study history, you shouldn't just be studying the past, but the present, and the future. You should be studying human nature, as well as all of the things associated with studying people.

In effect, that's what you are doing. You are trying to study people with eyes outside of your particular timeframe. History should give you a broader perspective on life, rather than just a list of names and dates.

 

History is written by the victor.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nothing else to say.

- N

 

Neildo, one thing more to say, it is also defined by the winner.

 

Depends who's telling the story, it's up around 90%.

 

John99, can't be done just look at 9/11 with video and all and you still have people who can't agree on what the history of that event is.

 

When the American people are taught that the revered fathers of their nation were for the most part a bunch of landgrabbing gangster freemasons, and that the true Patriots (i.e. those that were true to the land of their fathers, England) were those who opposed the American Revolution . . . when that happens . . .

Well, actually, that probably will not happen. But if it were to happen, Americans would be learning something closer to the truth than earlier generations. But also, it would mean that America was on the brink of collapse. It would be unhealthy to get too close to the cynical historical reality. People need to be spun a story that allows them to see themselves both as the "good guys" and as the "winners".

Consider the poor old Germans! Not only did they lose the last show, but the victors saw to it that they were indoctrinated with the story that they were downright evil, and anyone who mentions the series of outrages on the Jewish side that led up to Kristallnacht can be jailed. Not a healthy situation! The Germans are declining in number, their land is filling up with Turks and sundry other untermensch, and they have been sold the idea that they are citizens of a (post-German) European entity now. Bavarians have taken refuge in considering themselves simply Bavarians and hardly German at all.

The British are currently coming round to the idea that the enormous outpouring of discovery, naval heroics, adventure and invention that led them to conquer a quarter of the world, and to establish English as the world-language, was actually something they should apologise for! God help them! No wonder the country is going down the drain, and that large parts of it have passed into the occupation of aliens.

History is a psycho-political tool. There's good bullshit and there's bad bullshit.

 

Correct, history is written by the winners. The farer we get in time from the events the better, the more objective the view, because less people have interest in twisting the facts. 4-5 generations away you can almost tell the truth, like:

- Lincoln was an asshole warcriminal
- the top of the US government knew about the planned attack on Pearl Harbour but they needed it as an excuse to enter WW2
Oupps, this last one wasn't 4-5 generations away, still the truth...

 

Is there such a thing as a French history book?

 

How, exactly, was Lincoln a warcriminal?

 

This thread poses a good question.
It is somewhat of a conundrum these days in terms of honest efforts towards truthful information.

Not just history, but science.
It is possible that much of the history and science that we learn in academics and outside of academics is an intentional sham to keep the truth supressed.

Either way, what is taught in modern traditional academics is not the whole story, but based on what the puppetmasters want us to be exposed to in order to shape our paradigm.

 

And let's not forget that distortion in the presentation of current events is even more important a topic that bias in history. I hope everyone has watched this excellent video.

 

I think the accuracy of details is among the least of the problems with history. A much bigger problem is the disappearance of important events with the simultaneous emphasis of trivia.

In high school on a history test I was asked, "What American general said NUTS to the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge?" I of course missed this question since it is the kind of thing I regard as too unimportant to remember. But I have seen a movie where this exact event is a scene. It comes across as very funny with the Germans trying to figure out American slang.

But a much more significant occurence wasn't mentioned in the history book at all. Henry Ford donated money to the NAZI party during the 20s. What If Ford hadn't done that and Hitler hadn't risen to power? There might not have been a Battle of the Bulge.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm

psik

 

history is total bullshit, we were put here by aliens and that got lost in translation over the years.

On a lighter note, in a political history context, i think its more false interpretation and justification for actions and motives. For instance, the victor might claim they invaded a country due to a direct threat when thats not really the case. Just like how some american history books would justify the vietnam war. You'll rarely read a textbook without political bias as you'll never be taught that america stomped on the soverieignty of other countries to deter the spread of communism. It would be interpreted as they were protected without mentioning they forcibly subjugated so they had no choice.