How much of our history is incorrect?

[strung_out7]

We know that the text books of history are always written by the 'winners'. How much of our history is actually misleading and incorrect due to this?

For me, South America is interesting in this regard. The Spanish basically made out that the Incas, Aztecs etc. were blood thirsty primitives sacrificing life at will. But were they actually well advanced? For example, they were already genetically modifying crops and there is some suggestion that places like Machu Picchu may have been university like centres.

How much of our history has been 'deleted' by people such as the church, and how much is actually true ?

 

[Roylion]

I'm not sure that 'history' is necessarily 'misleading' and 'incorrect'. What do you define as 'incorrect' and on what basis?

We have plenty of accounts from both sides in all kinds of historical events: World War I, World War II, the French Revolution, the English Civil War and so on. Historians draw from multiple sources and take their biases into account - no historian of any worth reads a winner's account of an event as a source and just accepts it at face value.

History, certainly these days, is often written by trained experts who analyse and critically examine their source material, taking things like the biases of the 'winners' into account and compare their versions to other sourced data to determine a more rounded and objective view.

 

[Subutai]

I'm not sure that 'history' is necessarily 'misleading' and 'incorrect'. What do you define as 'incorrect' and on what basis?

In general, that 'history is written by the winners'

and hence incorrect and with strong bias, you know the definition of these words.

We have plenty of accounts from both sides in all kinds of historical events: World War I, World War II, the French Revolution, the English Civil War and so on. Historians draw from multiple sources and take their biases into account - no historian of any worth reads a winner's account of an event as a source and just accepts it at face value.

You often get told the Germans were 'evil'. You dont often get told they got screwed in treaties, they have much of their country taken away. People were starving. They were not allowed to have much of an empire like England and co.

 

[Roylion]

In general, that 'history is written by the winners'

and hence incorrect and with strong bias, you know the definition of these words.

Much history is certainly interpretation (and thus involves 'bias') of what are generally considered the 'facts'. The 'winners' may often write history from their perspective, but I don't know that anyone can say that such a history is necessarily 'incorrect'. As I said many modern historians attempt to analyse and critically examine their source material to determine a more rounded and objective view. Sir Geoffrey Elton saw the duty of historians as empirically gathering evidence and objectively analyzing what the evidence has to say. Edward Carr had a different view. He argued that history was "an unending dialogue between the past and present" meaning of course that present events and current social mores shape our view and interpretations of history.

 

[Subutai]

History, certainly these days, is often written by trained experts who analyse and critically examine their source material, taking things like the biases of the 'winners' into account and compare their versions to other sourced data to determine a more rounded and objective view.

Thats a very 'optimistic' way of putting it

 

[Roylion]

Thats a very 'optimistic' way of putting it

How should I put it?

 

[sydney eagle]

Certainly history isn't always written by the winners. Just have a look at how many books have been written on the American Civil War by people from yje South (including participants in the war).

 

[Subutai]

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon" Napoleon Bonaparte

What people, not the 'losers'.

 

[Roylion]

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon" Napoleon Bonaparte

What people, not the 'losers'.

But often 'people' don't agree. I teach historiography and I make the point to students that there are myriads of differing expert opinion on a great number of historical subjects. Students of history need to be able to argue their case and back it with evidence.

 

[Roylion]

In general, that 'history is written by the winners'

and hence incorrect and with strong bias, you know the definition of these words.

View attachment 215635

You often get told the Germans were 'evil'.

Really? By who?

You dont often get told they got screwed in treaties,

Told by who?

have much of their country taken away. People were starving. They were not allowed to have much of an empire like England and co.

Have you studied the causes of World War I and the reasons for the rise of the Nazis? I always make the point that there was great resentment in Germany after World War I at the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. We also examine whether Article 231 of that treaty was justified.

 

[Subutai]

But often 'people' don't agree. I teach historiography and I make the point to students that there are myriads of differing expert opinion on a great number of historical subjects. Students of history need to be able to argue their case and back it with evidence.

Sometimes there is limited evidence, for example where is the proof of hitlers death?

Would you say the curriculum is written to give a honest and true report of history or to further the agenda or the establishment? To get somewhat controversial. For example Australian history...

 

[Roylion]

Sometimes there is limited evidence, for example where is the proof of hitlers death?

There's a number of sources for Hitler's death. Eyewitness accounts from transcripts of interviews both from Soviet soldiers and German POWs, photographs from Soviet archives, dental records, and so on.

Would you agree the curriculum is written to give a honest and true report or history or to further the agenda or the establishment?

No I wouldn't agree. Teachers are not told which side of a historical argument they should teach. Given time restraints we encourage students to be as objective as possible in their views of various historical controversies / questions.

 

[Subutai]

'Hitler skull' revealed as female

Scientists said the bone fragment was too thin to be from an adult male
A bone fragment believed to be part of Adolf Hitler's skull has been revealed as being that of an unidentified woman, US scientists have said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8281839.stm


Tests on skull fragment cast doubt on Adolf Hitler suicide story
Bone with bullet hole found by Russians in 1946 came from an unknown woman, not the German leader
Why Hitler's world may not be so far away

A general view of what Russian officials claim to be a fragment of Adolf Hitler's skull, at an exhibition in Moscow, Wed April 26, 2000. Photograph: Mikhail Metzel/AP

• In countless biographies of Adolf Hitler the story of his final hours is recounted in the traditional version: committing suicide with Eva Braun, he took a cyanide pill and then shot himself on 30 April 1945, as the Russians bombarded Berlin.

Some historians expressed doubt that the Führer had shot himself, speculating that accounts of Hitler's death had been embellished to present his suicide in a suitably heroic light. But a fragment of skull, complete with bullet hole, which was taken from the bunker by the Russians and displayed in Moscow in 2000, appeared to settle the argument.

Until now. In the wake of new revelations, the histories of Hitler's death may need to be rewritten – and left open-ended. American researchers claim to have demonstrated that the skull fragment, secretly preserved for decades by Soviet intelligence, belonged to a woman under 40, whose identity is unknown. DNA analyses performed on the bone, now held by the Russian State Archive in Moscow, have been processed at the genetics lab of the University of Connecticut. The results, broadcast in the US by a History Channel documentary, Hitler's Escape, astonished scientists.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/27/adolf-hitler-suicide-skull-fragment

Fresh doubts over Hitler's death after tests on bullet hole skull reveal it belonged to a woman
Adolf Hitler may not have shot himself dead and perhaps did not even die in his bunker, it emerged yesterday.

A skull fragment believed for decades to be the Nazi leader’s has turned out to be that of a woman under 40 after DNA analysis.

Scientists and historians had long thought it to be conclusive proof that Hitler shot himself in the head after taking a cyanide pill on 30 April 1945 rather than face the ignominy of capture.

Revealed: The skull with a bullet hole, kept in a Russian archive, is a woman's

The piece of skull - complete with bullet hole - had been taken from outside the Fuhrer’s bunker by the Russian Army and preserved by Soviet intelligence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ans-Fresh-doubts-death-tests-bullet-hole.html

without trying to fall too far off topic

 

[Roylion]

without trying to fall too far off topic

Yes...and?

Periodically new evidence relating to a historical topic or event may be uncovered by scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists and so on. Happens all the time. The remains of Richard III were discovered after 500 years for example.

New technologies such as the sequencing of DNA are invented.

If anything that should reaffirm that the study of history is not static and is re-written and re-assessed all the time in light of new discoveries.

So...?

 

[Subutai]

OP said it well ImO:

How much of our history is actually misleading and incorrect

How much of our history has been 'deleted' by people such as the church, and how much is actually true ?

 

[Roylion]

OP said it well ImO:

How much of our history is actually misleading and incorrect

How much of our history has been 'deleted' by people such as the church, and how much is actually true ?

So what's your answer? Have you got some examples of misleading and incorrect history to draw upon?

 

[Subutai]

So what's your answer? Have you got some examples of misleading and incorrect history to draw upon?

I think there is no shortage.

 

[Roylion]

I think there is no shortage.

Like what?

 

[strung_out7]

In general, that 'history is written by the winners'

and hence incorrect and with strong bias, you know the definition of these words.

View attachment 215635



You often get told the Germans were 'evil'. You dont often get told they got screwed in treaties, they have much of their country taken away. People were starving. They were not allowed to have much of an empire like England and co.

This is very true in terms of what we are taught in the classroom. For example, the Russians also invaded Poland a few weeks after the Germans, why wasn't war declared on them? Also war crimes carried out by the allies, such as the rape of millions of German woman, the bombing of innocent civilians in Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima etc tend to be overlooked as it was only the axis powers who were evil.

It would be interesting to know how much history was lost due to the rise in Christianity during the 12th century onwards

 

[BS_82]

But often 'people' don't agree. I teach historiography and I make the point to students that there are myriads of differing expert opinion on a great number of historical subjects. Students of history need to be able to argue their case and back it with evidence.

History as we know it in the west is flawed.

Treaty of Versailles, treaty of Constantinople, and Aesops fables is all you really need to know.

That and the fact that communism is the single biggest killer of human ever.

Communism and capitalism all end in the centralization of power.

Sortition and Platos works are recommended

 

[Seeds]

This is very true in terms of what we are taught in the classroom. For example, the Russians also invaded Poland a few weeks after the Germans, why wasn't war declared on them? Also war crimes carried out by the allies, such as the rape of millions of German woman, the bombing of innocent civilians in Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima etc tend to be overlooked as it was only the axis powers who were evil.

It would be interesting to know how much history was lost due to the rise in Christianity during the 12th century onwards

Werent the English first fighting the Russians in world war 2?

 

[Roylion]

This is very true in terms of what we are taught in the classroom. For example, the Russians also invaded Poland a few weeks after the Germans, why wasn't war declared on them?

The Soviets publicly used their invasion of Poland as a justification for protecting their own security, although the bottom line is that neither Britain and France wanted a confrontation with the Soviet Union over Poland, at a time they were fighting Germany.

Also war crimes carried out by the allies, such as the rape of millions of German woman, the bombing of innocent civilians in Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima etc tend to be overlooked as it was only the axis powers who were evil.

Overlooked by who?

It would be interesting to know how much history was lost due to the rise in Christianity during the 12th century onwards

How? By the destroying of records?

 

[Roylion]

History as we know it in the west is flawed.

In what respect?

 

[strung_out7]

Yes by destroying records. The church was quite ruthless back then especially if you went against them in their beliefs, you are a witch etc. how many discoveries, answers to the past etc were lost during these times will remain unknown.

Overlooked by what we are taught. We are only ever given the account of what happened by the winners. As time goes by, thus information becomes more one sided, hence history is lost

 

[Roylion]

Yes by destroying records. The church was quite ruthless back then especially if you went against them in their beliefs, you are a witch etc. how many discoveries, answers to the past etc were lost during these times will remain unknown.

This is too simplistic. The medieval Church was responsible for preserving quite a deal of ancient knowledge. Copying and preserving of ancient manuscripts by medieval monks including Aristotle, Cicero, Lucan, Pliny, Statius, Trogus Pompeius, Horace, Ovid, Terence, Martial, Seutonius, and Virgil was common. The American historian David C. Lindberg stated that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature".

Overlooked by what we are taught.

Are you sure you're not confusing this with what YOU were taught? History doesn't just exist with the confines of a classroom. Also I can assure you that events such as Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima are taught in classrooms.

We are only ever given the account of what happened by the winners.

I don't think this is the case at all. Where are you getting your History from?

As time goes by, thus information becomes more one sided, hence history is lost

No it doesn't. In fact new methods of analysing history - both literary and technological - give a wider breadth of history than we've ever had before. For example, the ability to sequence DNA has provided new dimensions and perspectives to the study of history.