4 ms·

While I agree that sentence is a dishonest summary, one has to be careful when claiming “rewriting history”. As history is written by the victors, parts are ign

by jkmcf 8y ago

While I agree that sentence is a dishonest summary, one has to be careful when claiming “rewriting history”. As history is written by the victors, parts are ignored, misrepresented, or plain fabricated. Eg, every American child is brought up believing the Betsy Ross story (possibly/likely) fabricated by her descendants a hundred years later. Similar examples of retroactive history exist in English history where first recorded mentions are 200+ years after the events in question, not to mention excluding whole groups of people from history, ie women, slaves, children, commoners, losers, etc. All we can hope for is a fair reconstruction when new evidence is discovered, or critical thinking applied where it was previously absent.

ekianjo 8y ago
> Similar examples of retroactive history exist in English history where first recorded mentions are 200+ years after the events in question, not to mention excluding whole groups of people from history, ie women, slaves, children, commoners, losers, etc. Certainly, but the American revolution was just 200 years ago or so, and we have outsiders views like Alexis de Tocqueville who should be regarded as primary source of truth regarding what the Revolution led to, instead of a pullitzer prize professor from 20xx who has never even remotely lived in that period.
- rounce 8y ago
  But your 'outsider' is actually a temporal insider, and has nothing of the perspective that is lent by time.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  De Tocqueville was visiting a country that had already been purged of key dissenting voices. When the American Revolution broke out, society was quite split on whether to remain a colony or to rebel. The revolutionaries won in large part by burning down loyalists' houses and tarring and feathering them, until they either fled to Canada and the West Indies or kept their mouths shut from fear. Saying that the independent US was so great because Tocqueville thought it free and prosperous is like saying any repressive state is so great because when you traveled there you met so many happy people and did not see anything amiss. If you like contemporary primary sources, there are plenty of letters and diaries documenting how oppressive the revolutionaries were. No surprise that doesn't get covered in American schools, it would get in the way of constructing a national mythology like every newly independent nation wants to do (my own Eastern European country is just as bad).
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Have you ever read Tocqueville? He goes way beyond the simple appearances and is one of the most insightful observers about America. Its not because he liked what he saw that he should be dismissed.
perl4ever 8y ago
History is not written by the victors, nor by the truthtellers; it is written by the people who make stuff up that others enjoy repeating. For instance, I disagree with your claim about the Betsy Ross story. I think it's ridiculous to insist that everyone treats it as gospel any more than the story of Washington and the cherry tree. But if your claim feels "truthy" to others based on their prejudices then it will be repeated and be immortal. Who "wins" or "loses" and how we define winning or losing is irrelevant.

by jkmcf 8y ago

ekianjo 8y ago

> Similar examples of retroactive history exist in English history where first recorded mentions are 200+ years after the events in question, not to mention excluding whole groups of people from history, ie women, slaves, children, commoners, losers, etc. Certainly, but the American revolution was just 200 years ago or so, and we have outsiders views like Alexis de Tocqueville who should be regarded as primary source of truth regarding what the Revolution led to, instead of a pullitzer prize professor from 20xx who has never even remotely lived in that period.

rounce 8y ago
But your 'outsider' is actually a temporal insider, and has nothing of the perspective that is lent by time.
Mediterraneo10 8y ago
De Tocqueville was visiting a country that had already been purged of key dissenting voices. When the American Revolution broke out, society was quite split on whether to remain a colony or to rebel. The revolutionaries won in large part by burning down loyalists' houses and tarring and feathering them, until they either fled to Canada and the West Indies or kept their mouths shut from fear. Saying that the independent US was so great because Tocqueville thought it free and prosperous is like saying any repressive state is so great because when you traveled there you met so many happy people and did not see anything amiss. If you like contemporary primary sources, there are plenty of letters and diaries documenting how oppressive the revolutionaries were. No surprise that doesn't get covered in American schools, it would get in the way of constructing a national mythology like every newly independent nation wants to do (my own Eastern European country is just as bad).
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Have you ever read Tocqueville? He goes way beyond the simple appearances and is one of the most insightful observers about America. Its not because he liked what he saw that he should be dismissed.

perl4ever 8y ago

History is not written by the victors, nor by the truthtellers; it is written by the people who make stuff up that others enjoy repeating. For instance, I disagree with your claim about the Betsy Ross story. I think it's ridiculous to insist that everyone treats it as gospel any more than the story of Washington and the cherry tree. But if your claim feels "truthy" to others based on their prejudices then it will be repeated and be immortal. Who "wins" or "loses" and how we define winning or losing is irrelevant.