Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have had experience with a number of events in my life and history. Yet years later looking at the recorded events as written it's like I was never there?
I often wonder if hundreds of years ago when only a few could write and they were influenced how to record events just how accurate they were?
Maybe it does not matter but it does make you wonder.
I have had experience with a number of events in my life and history. Yet years later looking at the recorded events as written it's like I was never there?
I often wonder if hundreds of years ago when only a few could write and they were influenced how to record events just how accurate they were?
Maybe it does not matter but it does make you wonder.
Yes, that is quite true. History is always written with an agenda, perhaps more so now than ever before, and events are distilled down to the point that any history is inevitably quite superficial.
A minor example, I used to write press releases for distribution to the media. I would distribute a completely factual, two-page release to major newspapers, and then watch in amazement as some of them completely mangled the content of the release in their reporting. It was a truly bizarre phenomenon. If I said our quarterly earnings were $34 million, they would be reported as $83M or $16M - figures that weren't merely typos but that had no relation to the reported amount.
Not to send your thread off into a tangent, but I happen to be a serious student of the JFK assassination. The "official history" as reported in the mainstream texts and media bears little relation to what actually happened. "Superficial" would be too charitable a description. In this instance, there is no question that the history is agenda-driven. There are multiple agendas in play, one of which is the see-no-evil comfort of believing Oswald acted alone and that we live in a society where the military, law enforcement and intelligence communities are filled with good and honorable men and women who have only our peace, security and welfare at heart.
Yes, that is quite true. History is always written with an agenda, perhaps more so now than ever before, and events are distilled down to the point that any history is inevitably quite superficial.
A minor example, I used to write press releases for distribution to the media. I would distribute a completely factual, two-page release to major newspapers, and then watch in amazement as some of them completely mangled the content of the release in their reporting. It was a truly bizarre phenomenon. If I said our quarterly earnings were $34 million, they would be reported as $83M or $16M - figures that weren't merely typos but that had no relation to the reported amount.
Not to send your thread off into a tangent, but I happen to be a serious student of the JFK assassination. The "official history" as reported in the mainstream texts and media bears little relation to what actually happened. "Superficial" would be too charitable a description. In this instance, there is no question that the history is agenda-driven. There are multiple agendas in play, one of which is the see-no-evil comfort of believing Oswald acted alone and that we live in a society where the military, law enforcement and intelligence communities are filled with good and honorable men and women who have only our peace, security and welfare at heart.
Here's the most recent thread about the JFK Assassination:
Clearly, all historians are not always honest and objective, but even then there were as many different perspectives on human events as there were humans experiencing them. It's virtually impossible to get a truly objective view on history beyond historical artifacts themselves, but there is only so much an innaminate object can tell you.
On top of that, people tend to forget or not give importance to many things that future people are interested in such as the daily lives of everyday people at the time. We get lots of artifacts and info about kings and elites, but what about the other 99%?
people tend to forget or not give importance to many things that future people are interested in such as the daily lives of everyday people at the time. We get lots of artifacts and info about kings and elites, but what about the other 99%?
True. To give one example -- I read a book with reliable, well-documented footnotes called "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven". It said that throughout the middle ages in Europe, the Church forbade couples to have sexual relations on approximately 1/3 of the days of the year, which were either official "holy days" or were within a several-week period surrounding Christmas and Easter. The priests told parents that if their babies were born physically or mentally deformed it was because they were conceived on those forbidden days.
Something like this had a tremendous effect on people's daily lives, and yet it's little-known. Instead we concentrate on silly trivia like learning the names of Henry 8th's wives.
Yes, that is quite true. History is always written with an agenda, perhaps more so now than ever before, and events are distilled down to the point that any history is inevitably quite superficial.
...
I think one of the best examples of how history was written (and taught) with an agenda was the deification of George Washington. The myths began early on and were not corrected until fairly recently...if it is even possible to correct all the myths.
The throwing of the silver dollar across the Potomac: wrong, because the Potomac was too wide; wrong because at the time he lived along the Rappahannock River.
His wooden false teeth: Nope, although some were made of lead components!
He was born at Ferry Farm in Fredericksburg, Virginia: Nope, he was born in a totally different county and later moved to Ferry Farm.
And those are just the "fantasy legends". So how much can we trust the substantive history.
Countries and religions use myth-making to boost the import and "rightness" of their dealings. Every English schoolchild knows how the English defeated the Spanish Armada, but not that the Spanish trounced the English fleet a year or two earlier. The myth of the "Liberty Bell" in the U.S. has NOTHING to do with the ringing out at the signing of the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, and everything to do with a newspaper puff piece and abolitionists placing the bell at the head of Lincoln's casket so the inscription could be read. It is important not to confuse popular myth and real history, or worse yet the whole cloth of conflated myth and real history disguised as "truth."
Real history and solid books are out there, they just tend to be dry and unpopular. My favorite comparison between myth and reality for the purpose of educating someone about the difference is to have the person read "Atlas Shrugged" and then "Empire Express" to see how a transcontinental railroad in a capitalist system is built in myth and then in reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
