5 ms·

History is what people want history to be, E.g. the Native American Genocide.Always was, always will be.History is always the tool to justify the status quo.

mjfl 5y ago
I never witnessed Native American genocide ommitted from any history class, even in elementary school, in a very red state.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- KingOfCoders 5y ago
  How many monuments are there in the US? How are they visited? How is a monument to the pilgrims visited a hundred times more than a museum to the genocide of Native Americans? History is not what is teached in school but how a society sees itself. German society at large has accepted the Holocaust, because it was useful, but hasn't accepted the history E.g. of the Deutschritterorden or the genocide of the Herero and Nama - it hasn't been useful to do so. There is no monument to the genocide of the Herero in Germany. History is a tool how society sees itself.
  - themitigating 5y ago
    School is a part of how that vision formed
  - WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    We just got rid of the Cleveland baseball team and Washington football team, but people act like society has come to terms with the genocide. Hell, Chicago hockey is still the Blackhawks, but since it’s “tasteful” people aren’t complaining loudly enough to get it to change.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - josephg 5y ago
    > History is not what is teached in school but how a society sees itself. Sounds closer to a definition of culture. And culture is never monolithic. Plenty of people are horrified by past atrocities committed on their behalf. And plenty of people don’t care. But you don’t measure a society’s collective perspective by counting monuments. Monuments signify what was important to the people who made them. Not the people who see them. For my money you’d do better to look at modern media of all kinds. What are the stories being told today, in news, in movies, in textbooks and in social media? They aren’t the same stories our forebears were telling.
    - KingOfCoders 5y ago
      No, just read the "history" of countries or events in different languages on Wikipedia, they are completely different.
- qiskit 5y ago
  Really? I remember being taught about pilgrims and indians in elementary school and then they simply stopped being mentioned. Nowhere did I ever read the native americans were genocided. I certainly never read we were the bad guys exterminating the natives. Everything was couched in terms like pilgrims, settlers, explorers, etc. Nowhere in any history book are we portrayed as genocidal villains like we portray the nazis. We are portrayed as the good guys. But then again, I'm from a very blue state. How many lines were dedicated to george washington and his family's history of exterminating native americans? I'm betting 0 lines. If native americans took the country back, do you think the history will remain the same?
  - mjfl 5y ago
    It was never moralistically portrayed like you seem to want. But definitely it was mentioned that 90% of Indians were killed by European diseases, sometimes intentionally delivered like the trail of tears, and additionally whenever gold was rumored to be on a site the indians would be pushed out.
    - qiskit 5y ago
      > It was never moralistically portrayed like you seem to want. How else do you portray an intentional and centuries long systematic genocide of an entire continent of nations? How do you portray the greatest genocide in human history? > But definitely it was mentioned that 90% of Indians were killed by European diseases, sometimes intentionally delivered like the trail of tears, and additionally whenever gold was rumored to be on a site the indians would be pushed out. Nothing you listed indicate an actual genocide. You didn't read about actual hunting and raping and exterminating of natives that happened all across the country? You didn't read about actual statehood laws ( majority white ) which encouraged settlers to kill off the natives. You didn't read about the US government working with railroad tycoons to kill off the natives to build railroads? As I said, if the natives were in charge, how do you think the history will be written? We'd be portrayed as monsters far worse than nazis. That was my point. History is written by the victors. Which you proved with your comment but yet deny.
RealityVoid 5y ago
> History is always the tool to justify the status quo. Strong disagree on this one, especially on the _always_ part. Many times it is, in state propaganda especially. But history is the study of things that have happened and there are many facets and things in the past worth knowing and thinking about. It need not be the only about the things thaught in schools. It is much more, much richer than that.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > But history is the study of things that have happened Sure, but the point being made is that often you don’t have documentation of reality and so, that history is completely erased. “History is written by the victors”
  - rcxdude 5y ago
    This isn't really true though, if you look through the historical record you can find plenty of sources from people who lost. Usually what's missing from the record is people who were illiterate (which is a lot of people as soon as you go any significant length of time back).
    - qiskit 5y ago
      "History is written by the victors" doesn't mean it is only written by the winning side at that time in history forever. It means history is written by those currently in charge today. Meaning today's victors get to choose what is history and how to view history. Imagine if there is a war between the US and Mexico and we lose and mexico takes over. The history of the alamo, mexican-american war, annexation of texas, etc will be quite different even though we beat mexico in the 1800s. Imagine if the south does rise again and the south takes over. The history of the civil war will be remarkably different even those the north won the civil war. Doesn't really matter who the victors were back then. What's important is who the victors are today.
      - RealityVoid 5y ago
pm90 5y ago
> History is what people want history to be Yes > .Always was, always will be.History is always the tool to justify the status quo. No and yes. We have various sources to determine what happened. To create a specific kind of narrative using that data is a choice that many can make. But historical data is still there, and different narratives might still arise. Liberal democracies and the freedom of speech create the fertile ground required for historians to look at past records and explain what happened.
- trzy 5y ago
  True but the thorny question is not “what happened” but “what happened that was important?” What do we focus on investigating and how do we connect it to a broader narrative (and when writing a paper, a book, or a lecture, there is always a narrative because that’s how we communicate).

mjfl 5y ago

I never witnessed Native American genocide ommitted from any history class, even in elementary school, in a very red state.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
KingOfCoders 5y ago
How many monuments are there in the US? How are they visited? How is a monument to the pilgrims visited a hundred times more than a museum to the genocide of Native Americans? History is not what is teached in school but how a society sees itself. German society at large has accepted the Holocaust, because it was useful, but hasn't accepted the history E.g. of the Deutschritterorden or the genocide of the Herero and Nama - it hasn't been useful to do so. There is no monument to the genocide of the Herero in Germany. History is a tool how society sees itself.
- themitigating 5y ago
  School is a part of how that vision formed
- WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  We just got rid of the Cleveland baseball team and Washington football team, but people act like society has come to terms with the genocide. Hell, Chicago hockey is still the Blackhawks, but since it’s “tasteful” people aren’t complaining loudly enough to get it to change.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- josephg 5y ago
  > History is not what is teached in school but how a society sees itself. Sounds closer to a definition of culture. And culture is never monolithic. Plenty of people are horrified by past atrocities committed on their behalf. And plenty of people don’t care. But you don’t measure a society’s collective perspective by counting monuments. Monuments signify what was important to the people who made them. Not the people who see them. For my money you’d do better to look at modern media of all kinds. What are the stories being told today, in news, in movies, in textbooks and in social media? They aren’t the same stories our forebears were telling.
  - KingOfCoders 5y ago
    No, just read the "history" of countries or events in different languages on Wikipedia, they are completely different.
qiskit 5y ago
Really? I remember being taught about pilgrims and indians in elementary school and then they simply stopped being mentioned. Nowhere did I ever read the native americans were genocided. I certainly never read we were the bad guys exterminating the natives. Everything was couched in terms like pilgrims, settlers, explorers, etc. Nowhere in any history book are we portrayed as genocidal villains like we portray the nazis. We are portrayed as the good guys. But then again, I'm from a very blue state. How many lines were dedicated to george washington and his family's history of exterminating native americans? I'm betting 0 lines. If native americans took the country back, do you think the history will remain the same?
- mjfl 5y ago
  It was never moralistically portrayed like you seem to want. But definitely it was mentioned that 90% of Indians were killed by European diseases, sometimes intentionally delivered like the trail of tears, and additionally whenever gold was rumored to be on a site the indians would be pushed out.
  - qiskit 5y ago
    > It was never moralistically portrayed like you seem to want. How else do you portray an intentional and centuries long systematic genocide of an entire continent of nations? How do you portray the greatest genocide in human history? > But definitely it was mentioned that 90% of Indians were killed by European diseases, sometimes intentionally delivered like the trail of tears, and additionally whenever gold was rumored to be on a site the indians would be pushed out. Nothing you listed indicate an actual genocide. You didn't read about actual hunting and raping and exterminating of natives that happened all across the country? You didn't read about actual statehood laws ( majority white ) which encouraged settlers to kill off the natives. You didn't read about the US government working with railroad tycoons to kill off the natives to build railroads? As I said, if the natives were in charge, how do you think the history will be written? We'd be portrayed as monsters far worse than nazis. That was my point. History is written by the victors. Which you proved with your comment but yet deny.

RealityVoid 5y ago

> History is always the tool to justify the status quo. Strong disagree on this one, especially on the _always_ part. Many times it is, in state propaganda especially. But history is the study of things that have happened and there are many facets and things in the past worth knowing and thinking about. It need not be the only about the things thaught in schools. It is much more, much richer than that.

yunohn 5y ago
> But history is the study of things that have happened Sure, but the point being made is that often you don’t have documentation of reality and so, that history is completely erased. “History is written by the victors”
- rcxdude 5y ago
  This isn't really true though, if you look through the historical record you can find plenty of sources from people who lost. Usually what's missing from the record is people who were illiterate (which is a lot of people as soon as you go any significant length of time back).
  - qiskit 5y ago
    "History is written by the victors" doesn't mean it is only written by the winning side at that time in history forever. It means history is written by those currently in charge today. Meaning today's victors get to choose what is history and how to view history. Imagine if there is a war between the US and Mexico and we lose and mexico takes over. The history of the alamo, mexican-american war, annexation of texas, etc will be quite different even though we beat mexico in the 1800s. Imagine if the south does rise again and the south takes over. The history of the civil war will be remarkably different even those the north won the civil war. Doesn't really matter who the victors were back then. What's important is who the victors are today.
    - RealityVoid 5y ago

pm90 5y ago

> History is what people want history to be Yes > .Always was, always will be.History is always the tool to justify the status quo. No and yes. We have various sources to determine what happened. To create a specific kind of narrative using that data is a choice that many can make. But historical data is still there, and different narratives might still arise. Liberal democracies and the freedom of speech create the fertile ground required for historians to look at past records and explain what happened.

trzy 5y ago
True but the thorny question is not “what happened” but “what happened that was important?” What do we focus on investigating and how do we connect it to a broader narrative (and when writing a paper, a book, or a lecture, there is always a narrative because that’s how we communicate).