Who Writes Today's History?

[jmpet]

Who Writes History Today?

The only true answer I can think of is Wikipedia- an uber-source to pull information from. And it's all free- it's all about the information itself... dare I say Wikipedia has replaced the library for the cursory or fuel for the intelligent?

I wish it wasn't true, but I think it is. I would like to believe The New York Times or Time Magazine are keeping tally but they're not- they're rags that sell papers; it's not historically worthy unless as a good reference.

I would like to believe our kids' history books are keeping a tally of history but the average kid's history book is how many years old?? As they say, "9/11 changed everything" and 9/11 to present in today's history books is the last 4 pages of a 467 page book.

And the book itself is studied and forgotten with time. Who here remembers their 4th grade history book??

So who exactly writes history?

 

[Skeptical]

The people who write today's history are the people who will be referred to by tomorrow's historians. Who knows. It might be you.

 

[chimpkin]

Unfortunately, here in the United States, it's the Texas School Board:

....Those corrections have prompted a blizzard of accusations of rewriting history and indoctrinating children by promoting rightwing views on religion, economics and guns while diminishing the science of evolution, the civil rights movement and the horrors of slavery.....
...
....By some estimates, all but a handful of American states rely on text books written to meet the Texas curriculum

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

 

[gmilam]

Unfortunately, here in the United States, it's the Texas School Board:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

Frightening. Seriously!

 

[Shogun]

The victor and the strongest will write the history of tomorrow

 

[wellwisher]

It was the liberals who began rewriting history over the past several decades, to make history more integrated and inclusive, even if the new rewrite was a stretch. How do you think invented, "fill in the blank history month". The Liberal PC wing also tries to remove words from books (Mark Twain) that give a reality context to history, so hisotry can be alterred into liberal image of revision. A return to reality is now what appears to be revision, since the young people do not have any objective POV from before they indocrination in public schools.

For example, the earliest English settlers in America were the Pilgrims, who migrated to the new world for religous freedom. It was not an atheist thing, since they were among the godless driving them away. Right at the beginning, the demographics onto which America would nucleate eventually into a repulblic, was geared around religion, self reliance, hard work, accountability, character, etc.

As far as slavery, science, technology and business played major roles in the drastic increase in slavery. The industrial revolution, because of science and technology, needed cheap raw materials, such as cotton. This benefitted by cheap labor with slavery as cheap as it gets.

Although slavery can't be justified, the descendents of American slaves are much better off than the descendents of the Afticans who were left behind in Africa. Nobody objectively compares this before and after to see if any good came from the bad.. Slavery in America help jump start the industrial revolution helping to alter the course of history.

Liberal retroactive guilt, where thw white people of today are told they are responsible for the past, even if they did nothing wrong or any other their relative where even in America at the time, is a form of revisionist history. In other words, it places you at the scene of the crime, even if you were not in that place in history.

But you areindirectly told you were there and need to feel guilty and make amends. You should only be judge by the content of your character and not the color of your skin. Martin Luther King said that, yet revisionists make skin color the basis of guilt and reward, while saying they are continuing the historical work of Martin Luther King.

 

[chimpkin]

How do you think invented, "fill in the blank history month."

Yes...unlike the other months that are all about rich (ostensibly) hetero white guys history, and even when it is minority group here history month, it's still primarily going to be about rich, ostensibly hetero white guys.

For example, the earliest English settlers in America were the Pilgrims, who migrated to the new world for religous freedom.

Yeah, followed by a whole crapton of the shiftless, poverty-stricken excess population of Europe...including my Scots-Irish forebears...who probably engaged in the following practice...

-One of the more amusing things I learned in my college history is that illegal settlers who went over the Appalachians to farm during the Colonial period generally made their grain crops easier to transport over the mountains to market by...stilling it.

The Colonies were thus awash in cheap whiskey and roaring drunkards, everyone had a pocket flask, from which they sipped all day to keep their buzz on.

Although slavery can't be justified, the descendents of American slaves are much better off than the descendents of the Afticans who were left behind in Africa.

Yes, some Africans were colonially exploited here...while others were left onsite and colonized by Europeans.

The destruction of the Colonial period in African history has yet to be recovered from, as the wealthy African elites still hold the best land, marginalizing others in much of the continent, causing massive suffering and starvation while they produce export crops for money.

Liberal retroactive guilt, where thw white people of today are told they are responsible for the past

White skin privilege makes the cops treat you better and makes you far more likely to get a job.
That's not in the past, that's current.
Since it also affects how well-off your parents are, you're likely to grow up in way better conditions and get a far better education at better schools, too.
Race and class intertwine like that.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/

Anderson Cooper here decided to replicate a study that's been repeated multiple times in many cities with about the same results: a black guy with no criminal record is about as likely to get called for an interview as a white convicted felon.

 

[Skeptical]

Slavery in America help jump start the industrial revolution helping to alter the course of history.

Far from true.
When slavery was rife in the USA, the amount of industry was miniscule compared to Europe. By the time America became a big industrial player, slavery was a thing of the past.

The industrial revolution began in Britain, and passed on to Europe, especially Germany. The USA was a very recent player. Slavery had pretty much zero effect on its development.


Chimpkin said

"The destruction of the Colonial period in African history has yet to be recovered from, as the wealthy African elites still hold the best land, marginalizing others in much of the continent, causing massive suffering and starvation while they produce export crops for money."

Also not quite correct. The poorest African nations today 'coincide' with the worst tyrannies by African leaders. Colonial history is guilty only in accelerating the transition from iron age tribal barbarism to 21st Century autocracy.

Sadly, the problems within African nations largely stem from their own cultural attributes. For example : Africans have enormously strong family ties and family loyalties. This leads to nepotism on a grand scale, and the idiot brother of the president becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs. Usually to the major detrement of the nation concerned.

In the same way, tribal hostilities and enmities lead to major conflict and even revolution within African nations, including unbelievably nasty atrocities against innocents. This has nothing to do with colonialism, except that colonising nations often failed to take tribalism adequately into account when drawing national boundaries.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Who Writes History Today?

The only true answer I can think of is Wikipedia- an uber-source to pull information from. And it's all free- it's all about the information itself... dare I say Wikipedia has replaced the library for the cursory or fuel for the intelligent?

I wish it wasn't true, but I think it is. I would like to believe The New York Times or Time Magazine are keeping tally but they're not- they're rags that sell papers; it's not historically worthy unless as a good reference.

I would like to believe our kids' history books are keeping a tally of history but the average kid's history book is how many years old?? As they say, "9/11 changed everything" and 9/11 to present in today's history books is the last 4 pages of a 467 page book.

And the book itself is studied and forgotten with time. Who here remembers their 4th grade history book??

So who exactly writes history?

Silly . The winners ! Yeah Winner . Ah Winner . It is called His Story for a reason . I got my own history you don't know cause it is family history not yet exploited. Blows some of the shit people think factual out of the water . It is good to know ones own historical roots . You might find out why you act the way you do. Your genetic disposition

 

[jmpet]

Children base history upon textbooks. College students with doctorate theses. But who speaks for the layman who comprises the other 90% of us all? And I am not positing but positing a real-answer question.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Unfortunately, here in the United States, it's the Texas School Board:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

Yeah Chimpkin is right bout that as far as schools go . The debate was heated as all can be this last time around . I forget some of the ridiculous things that now can not be taught because of it . I guarantee you it is ridiculous . It is like it is rewritten history all the time . They fight like hell about it too. I don't know why Texans get to chose . I guess everything's bigger in Texas

 

[jmpet]

Let's take American History. Who speaks for that? Who specifically???

As I understand it, we are left to piece together histories into one understanding but who watches the watchers?

No one??

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Far from true.
When slavery was rife in the USA, the amount of industry was miniscule compared to Europe. By the time America became a big industrial player, slavery was a thing of the past.

The industrial revolution began in Britain, and passed on to Europe, especially Germany. The USA was a very recent player. Slavery had pretty much zero effect on its development.


Chimpkin said

"The destruction of the Colonial period in African history has yet to be recovered from, as the wealthy African elites still hold the best land, marginalizing others in much of the continent, causing massive suffering and starvation while they produce export crops for money."

Also not quite correct. The poorest African nations today 'coincide' with the worst tyrannies by African leaders. Colonial history is guilty only in accelerating the transition from iron age tribal barbarism to 21st Century autocracy.

Sadly, the problems within African nations largely stem from their own cultural attributes. For example : Africans have enormously strong family ties and family loyalties. This leads to nepotism on a grand scale, and the idiot brother of the president becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs. Usually to the major detrement of the nation concerned.

In the same way, tribal hostilities and enmities lead to major conflict and even revolution within African nations, including unbelievably nasty atrocities against innocents. This has nothing to do with colonialism, except that colonising nations often failed to take tribalism adequately into account when drawing national boundaries.

Slavery was not like slavery like a person imagines until The Stono Rebellion happened . That altered History and what it meant to be a slave . After that a law was passed . The Negro Act of 17 something I forget . It was a law that gave the slave owner the right to beat or kill your slave . The slave took on more chattle value compared to human qualities . The slave became livestock , before that a slave could work to gain there freedom . More indentured servitude than what you would think of slavery of the deep south before the Civil war . Even then the sentiment towards Slavery was not the real issue for the white man for most of them was still living in the past by way of the laws brought on by the Stono Rebellion . Events in time have effects on attitudes for years . We should know this just by the things we witness day to day and see how the out comes effect policy. Reactionary is the best way I can describe it . Some one did this so lets hammer the f--ck out of it and make it better with a couple kicks to the nads too and if that don't work blow it up

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Let's take American History. Who speaks for that? Who specifically???

As I understand it, we are left to piece together histories into one understanding but who watches the watchers?

No one??

I watch them quite a bit . See what kind of twist in history is the new fad . It is all based in propaganda and twisted to support the power structures that be . If i have learned one thing for sure is History gets distorted just like the bible stories do . Day to day acts that seem like nothing get printed they become sensationalized and then when they take on wings of there own they become feats of human strength . See you take the Battle of Trenton, which most people know as the Delaware crossing by George Washington. People think that was some miraculous feat of human endeavor. What they don't understand is Old George baby and his 5,000 plus Men had to only kill 35 men to snatch victory . The 35 Men were Lead by a Greathouse I might add right here and now . We Greathouse" s are always lurking around if you have not noticed yet. So Yeah big man George killed Greathouse and his 34 men and caught the rest of em partying and past out drunk . It was the commanding Officer said to love life more than than his devotion to victory for his men . He lacked the killer instinct to win. So they say He was a Man that was to in love with life . He liked his drink and I imagine woman too . Sop he didn't feel threatened by George ( Kind of like Pearl Harbor and the communication brake down before that dreadful day . He blew em off and Greathouse did the best he could with his limited resources. The thing is America probably would not be if Greathouse was victorious over George Washington . It was one of those decisive battles in history . Yet most of you just see it as " Oh big Great Man George super Man kick the fuck out of the enemy by a miracle when in fact it was poor leadership by his enemy and if Greathouse got the reinforcements he needed George would have been a little foot note in history like Greathouse is today . Got you Google it get educated fuckers

 

[Yazata]

Who Writes History Today?

Historians, I guess. There's a whole academic publishing industry that publishes more history books and journal articles than anyone can keep up with. There are professional organizations in many fields of history that hold periodic conferences where papers are presented and historians meet, argue, socialize and network.

There do seem to be some trends underway.

For one thing, history is more professionalized today than it was in the past. In the 18'th century, and even into the 20'th century to some extent, history was often written by talented self-taught amateurs. Today it seems to be increasingly dominated by university professors, with a PhD and perhaps an academic appointment the price of admission.

Another tendency is the increasing politicization of the field. History writing is increasingly dominated by the interests and agendas of the academic left. Every year more and more academic titles take a strong race-class-gender theory approach to their subjects, and/or seek to 'deconstruct' and re-write everything that previous generations thought about the past.

There have probably never been more professional historians at work in the world than there are today, but the scale and quality of historical understanding doesn't seem to be keeping pace. Instead what we see is that a growing percentage of what is being produced is simply drivel.

Now, with government deficits and budget austerities taking hold throughout the West, with university funding being slashed and scarce resources being redirected to more job-related degree programs, the future outlook for the (once)traditional humanities subjects seems increasingly bleak.

 

[gmilam]

For example, the earliest English settlers in America were the Pilgrims,

Epic fail... Can you say "Jamestown"? (1607) Sure, I knew you could.

Not to mention that the Spanish had already been in Florida (St Augustine) for 40 years before that. (1565)

BTW - The Pilgrims actually came from the Netherlands... where they were trying to escape religious freedom. (Holland was a little TOO tolerant for their tastes.)

 

[Billy T]

As it has always been, the winner of the war writes the history, especially as to how the loser started it and why.

If the history does not concern war, but only events within a society then the rich and powerful write the history.

Eventually (long after "today") some professional historians will revise it to be more accurate, but there are always non-professional kooks like Sarah Palin revising it to support their causes and POV too.

 

[Skeptical]

Actually, the losers often write the history also. A later historian will frequently weigh one history against another. Mostly he is comparing contradictory lies.

 

[wellwisher]

History should be treated like you would treat data in science. It should be a discussion of the facts in the context of a unique place in space and time. Revisionists will often perform a time shift, trying to discuss the past in terms of the present.

For example, slavery in its day was a normal part of life and therefore was treated differenty in its day. Many of the dergatory terms specificed by the PC police were just words in its day. If we try to apply the present POV about slavery, when we write about the past, there is a distortion of history within time. Time shifting is a very simple criteria for identifying revisionist history. Time shifting can also involving judging the past, subjectively, in terms of the present sentiment. Although this may not change the facts, it distort the reality of the times. The past saw it differently therefore motivation was different than the revision.

Another example; much of the past was a man's world. That is the proper context for certain times in history since this reflects reality in time. If we try to revise history to make it look more like everything was more integrated and homogeneous like today, that is a revision in time. History is not about conformity to the present, based on PC standards, but an accurate portrayal of the past even if that portrayal is not flattering to the present.

Revisionist history may have begun with the movies and the entertainment industries, with modern entertainment based politics using this template. The formula for success needs actions, romance, drama, etc.. It may also be good to have a female hero who is manly in many ways. Any movie account of the past will need to take that formula for success into account to sell at the box office.

Modern politics is also entertainment and sales, so one might expect there is also the need for a box office hit. This does not say much about a constituency who accepts entertainment as fact. Howevr, if you were to write a history book it will sell better in the modern era if you use the test proven formula.

 

[Billy T]

Actually, the losers often write the history also. ...

Can you give an example? As I claim the war’s winners write history I will give two examples:

1) WWII: Pearl Harbor was a late consequence of US & British hostilities (economic war) against Japan.

After Churchill was assured by his high naval command that the Japanese could never take their large naval base and well fortified Singapore he gave the order to cut off the Japanese oil supply by blockade of the St. Of Malacca. When Japan have less than 90 days of oil left they attacked Singapore and took it, driving several thousand Brits north into the jungle.

Then FDR, assured by US Navy high command that Pearl Harbor was too far from Japanese controlled waters to be attacked, order the entire Pacific fleet to assemble there – forming the greatest armada in history which would soon set sail to rescue the trapped Brits and reclose the St. of Malacca, thru which all Japanese oil had to pass. Japan understood what was happening and knew that armada was unstoppable once at sea, so according the war’s winner, the Japanese started WWII by attacking Pearl Harbor.

2) US Civil War: South firing on Ft. Sumner was a late consequence of the North’s hostilities (economic war) against South.

Every Southern port (except a very minor one in the west of the Mississippi River) was blockaded by the North, because, the south was selling its cotton to England. Many small water power textile mills in New England states needed that cotton, but were less efficient than England’s large steam power mills and did not have an Empire to sell to, so they could only pay half as much per bale as England could. For about a year the blockade worked – forced the southerns to send cotton to New England mills but the plantations were losing money and their way of life was being destroyed.

Because the port of Charleston SC is closer to England, and was central to the main cotton growing region, at least 80% of cotton shipped to England thru it, prior to the blockade. Ft. Sumner sit on an island in the middle of that port’s harbor and can sink any ship trying to use that harbor, so according the war’s winner, the South started the civil war by firing on Ft. Sumner.

SUMMARY: The reason the winner’s lies work is they are "one sentence simple":
“Japan started WWII by attacking Pearl Harbor.” Or
“The South started the civil war by firing on Ft. Sumner.”

They do not require any knowledge of the facts or prior history. That is too complex for the ill-educated to follow.


BTW, if Hitler’s Third Reich were now the government of all of Europe, England included, here is what the history books would say caused the European part of WWII:

Europe was being economically strangled by the high interest rates the money grubbing Jews were collecting. They and other degenerates life forms were also weakening the Arian race by rape. Society had to protect itself from their evil policy and practices, so to prevent rape they were separated from the general population and placed in enclosures, which they often burnt down. There they even refused to do simple jobs, such as baking bread in the ovens supplied; jobs necessary to at least make some contribution to the cost of feeding and housing them. Fortunately under the leadership of Adoph, the savior of civilization, they have been defeated and the Third Reich is now safe and prosperous.