4 ms·

For those of us who think history is something set in stone, that it is something always known that we can come and learn about, let me urge you to think again!

For those of us who think history is something set in stone, that it is something always known that we can come and learn about, let me urge you to think again! History is created for us, to meet our needs. History is written by the victors. It is whatever is required or expedient for the present time. As Orwell said in 1984: Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. I have spoken to professional history (phds) and they are very busy nowadays! They are 'recovering' what are called ‘subaltern voices’ (ie women, LGBT+ people, people of colour, people in poverty, etc). I personally don't have a problem with this - the idea that history is something that is churned and re-written to suit whatever we need to get context on in the present. But we need to be aware that this is the case - we can't assume what occurred at the time is as it is presented to us in the present. However, I don't like it when idea where this history reappraisal process is weaponised against us - and used to direct our thinking. In any case, I think it is worth bearing in mind that despite the assured positions that historians take, it would be quite possible - via the creative reappraisal process - to show the opposite position with the same evidence! If one wants to get one's own position on whatever-it-is one must look at the primary sources for themselves (which are hardly ever provided in these brief write-ups) and check a/ where can one verify the source for oneself, b/ do you agree with the interpretation of the source, c/ is there further context that illuminates whatever-it-is.

Ygg2 5y ago
> Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. Orwell meant it as a warning, not as a manual. If past is mutable, it becomes less reliable.
- verisimi 5y ago
  Yes. The past is immutable. The point I am making is that the perception of the past is mutable. But it is sold as immutable. And it is interesting that you say 1984 is a warning not a manual. I've made the point before on this site that you can read 1984 as a manual: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30108824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30108824
  - usrusr 5y ago
    Unfortunately, awareness of perception's mutability is all too often taken as an excuse to go one step further...
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    History is not purely the record of the past. It never has been. The past is immutable but our understanding of it and our analysis of it and our relationship with it is not. History isn't sold as immutable and transparant except to people who stopped doing history in high school.
  - woolion 5y ago
    >Yes. The past is immutable. The point I am making is that the perception of the past is mutable. Much of history is not so much about the facts, which are generally fairly agreed upon and not so much rewritten, but on the narratives. For instance there is a war: the narratives are about which side is an aggressor or legitimate, and whether some actors are independent or malicious proxies. Facts are then presented in a way to reinforce the narratives, affecting their perception, and thus closing the circle. This is mostly the same issue with current news reporting.
watwut 5y ago
> History is written by the victors. It is not. The loosers keeps writing their opinions and versions of events, you just ignore that. The struggle for interpretation of events starts right after war ... and there is no universal law to guide who wins. For example, the popular history of American civil war was dominated by loosers view for years. In Russia, the history of Stalin ended up dominated by point of view of KGB agent ... who was looser after fall of communism and used it to rise back. > They are 'recovering' what are called ‘subaltern voices’ (ie women, LGBT+ people, people of colour, people in poverty, etc). There is no reason to put those into quotes. Pretty often, it is literal recovery - a matter of picking up letters, books, court documents etc out of archives and reading them instead of ignoring. In other cases, it is reading business documents and doing deductions out of that. That would fall under recovery too.
- usrusr 5y ago
  Ah, that guy... and my impression is that the self-image of KGB itself seemed to be built on the key event of one train from Zurich supposedly deciding an entire half of a world war, that's what they wanted to duplicate/prevent from happening to them again. Completely ignoring February and related events. Another example of selective perception. Speaking of history and how it's told, I wonder how the standing of Eisenstein's Battleship is these days?
  - watwut 5y ago
    No I dont mean that at all. I mean the point of view that Stalin was effective manager and that purges was unfortunate event that "just kinda happened" without anyone being responsible for anything. I also mean interpretation of Ukraine as "not a real thing" and everything related to it. I also mean what went on with Memoir group in Russia for years already, suppression and persecution. I also mean closing of archives in Russia that happens years ago. Self image of KGB is based on them considering themselves useful and good servants of the country. The ones keeping it together and the ones protecting it. I am not entirely sure what you refer to.
UncleMeat 5y ago
> If one wants to get one's own position on whatever-it-is one must look at the primary sources for themselves You can't. The archive isn't available. The huge majority of materials are not digitized and the digitization process loses a huge amount of important content (e.g., marginalia, letter forms, even the location within the archive). Archivists won't let laypeople touch old documents because you'll destroy them if you aren't trained. I think there is a general lack of respect for the actual expertise that historians have when people suggest that laypeople just form their own opinions based on the primary sources. The various historians I know each know like six different languages and had to read 200-300 manuscripts for just their qualifying exams. A layperson won't even be able to read the primary sources even if they are in a language they know just by virtue of problems like handwriting. This ignorance of the field comes through in your criticism of the modern project focusing on subaltern voices. History is in dialogue with other history. A historian that engages in this sort of critical reevaluation isn't throwing out the other material but is instead speaking to it. I think you'll find that the historians that you criticize have way more respect for the work that you think they oppose than the typical layperson.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Koshkin 5y ago
> History is written by the victors. Except today's history is written by the vlads.

Ygg2 5y ago

> Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. Orwell meant it as a warning, not as a manual. If past is mutable, it becomes less reliable.

verisimi 5y ago
Yes. The past is immutable. The point I am making is that the perception of the past is mutable. But it is sold as immutable. And it is interesting that you say 1984 is a warning not a manual. I've made the point before on this site that you can read 1984 as a manual: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30108824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30108824
- usrusr 5y ago
  Unfortunately, awareness of perception's mutability is all too often taken as an excuse to go one step further...
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  History is not purely the record of the past. It never has been. The past is immutable but our understanding of it and our analysis of it and our relationship with it is not. History isn't sold as immutable and transparant except to people who stopped doing history in high school.
- woolion 5y ago
  >Yes. The past is immutable. The point I am making is that the perception of the past is mutable. Much of history is not so much about the facts, which are generally fairly agreed upon and not so much rewritten, but on the narratives. For instance there is a war: the narratives are about which side is an aggressor or legitimate, and whether some actors are independent or malicious proxies. Facts are then presented in a way to reinforce the narratives, affecting their perception, and thus closing the circle. This is mostly the same issue with current news reporting.

watwut 5y ago

> History is written by the victors. It is not. The loosers keeps writing their opinions and versions of events, you just ignore that. The struggle for interpretation of events starts right after war ... and there is no universal law to guide who wins. For example, the popular history of American civil war was dominated by loosers view for years. In Russia, the history of Stalin ended up dominated by point of view of KGB agent ... who was looser after fall of communism and used it to rise back. > They are 'recovering' what are called ‘subaltern voices’ (ie women, LGBT+ people, people of colour, people in poverty, etc). There is no reason to put those into quotes. Pretty often, it is literal recovery - a matter of picking up letters, books, court documents etc out of archives and reading them instead of ignoring. In other cases, it is reading business documents and doing deductions out of that. That would fall under recovery too.

usrusr 5y ago
Ah, that guy... and my impression is that the self-image of KGB itself seemed to be built on the key event of one train from Zurich supposedly deciding an entire half of a world war, that's what they wanted to duplicate/prevent from happening to them again. Completely ignoring February and related events. Another example of selective perception. Speaking of history and how it's told, I wonder how the standing of Eisenstein's Battleship is these days?
- watwut 5y ago
  No I dont mean that at all. I mean the point of view that Stalin was effective manager and that purges was unfortunate event that "just kinda happened" without anyone being responsible for anything. I also mean interpretation of Ukraine as "not a real thing" and everything related to it. I also mean what went on with Memoir group in Russia for years already, suppression and persecution. I also mean closing of archives in Russia that happens years ago. Self image of KGB is based on them considering themselves useful and good servants of the country. The ones keeping it together and the ones protecting it. I am not entirely sure what you refer to.

UncleMeat 5y ago

> If one wants to get one's own position on whatever-it-is one must look at the primary sources for themselves You can't. The archive isn't available. The huge majority of materials are not digitized and the digitization process loses a huge amount of important content (e.g., marginalia, letter forms, even the location within the archive). Archivists won't let laypeople touch old documents because you'll destroy them if you aren't trained. I think there is a general lack of respect for the actual expertise that historians have when people suggest that laypeople just form their own opinions based on the primary sources. The various historians I know each know like six different languages and had to read 200-300 manuscripts for just their qualifying exams. A layperson won't even be able to read the primary sources even if they are in a language they know just by virtue of problems like handwriting. This ignorance of the field comes through in your criticism of the modern project focusing on subaltern voices. History is in dialogue with other history. A historian that engages in this sort of critical reevaluation isn't throwing out the other material but is instead speaking to it. I think you'll find that the historians that you criticize have way more respect for the work that you think they oppose than the typical layperson.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Koshkin 5y ago

> History is written by the victors. Except today's history is written by the vlads.