6 ms·

Historic revisionism has become very popular so as to make everyone feel better about their ancestors place in the annals of history. That everyone was at the s

Historic revisionism has become very popular so as to make everyone feel better about their ancestors place in the annals of history. That everyone was at the same level and made the same amount of contributions to the modern world, etc. And of course it was the singularly evil colonizers and their descendants that stole this history and claimed it for themselves, etc. To me it’s weird because it’s so unimportant. Who cares which groups of who were advanced or not and what they were doing back then. Anyone who feels better or worse about themselves because of this is weird.

parasti 4y ago
Is it weird or is it just human nature?
- ninkendo 4y ago
  Both. Human nature can be weird.
icegreentea2 4y ago
Reminder that historical revisionism is fundamentally just about revisiting and challenging common assumptions and doctrine. It's not accurate to ascribe a common socio-political goal to all people practicing revisionism. It is accurate to say that there are groups who revise history to achieve the purposes you describe. It would perhaps also be accurate to say that revisionists who propose histories that are more socio-politically palatable would be more generally successful.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Indeed. However I believe a lot of what is being not only published but rushed into curriculums is the political type. Examples kb ES would be the 1619 project or the trend in historical movies to aggregate a group of people into a single character but sell it as factual.
jackmott 4y ago
[dead]
shmageggy 4y ago
> To me it’s weird because it’s so unimportant. Who cares which groups of who were advanced or not and what they were doing back then. The people colonizing those lands certainly cared at the time, and they used such beliefs to justify a lot of pretty awful acts. Given that the modern, western world is built on the legacy of colonialism, it's important (at least to me) to understand whether those motivating beliefs were true.
- ninkendo 4y ago
  I think that’s a pretty uncharitable interpretation of GP’s comment. They said you don’t need to feel better or worse about yourself due to what your ancestors did or didn’t do and when. It doesn’t mean nobody did any bad things or that we can’t learn from it, but that we shouldn’t let it cause more tribalism today. IMO, we’re all the same species, our history is littered with awful and good people, and lots of flawed people in between. The retelling of history can be a bit one-sided at times, but it’s sometimes unhealthy to fixate on it as an ongoing cause of problems today.
  - aatd86 4y ago
    As long as it is not also an excuse to not undo the wrongs that often persist with such multi-generational catastrophic human problems. If I knew that everything I have is built on genocide, I would feel pretty wrong. Those who do not are probably a bit strange imho.
    - kimi 4y ago
      > If I knew that everything I have is built on genocide, I would feel pretty wrong. If I knew that everything I have is built on genocide is called human history. And I have a feeling that if the victims had been more lucky as to be the winners, they would have made more or less the same things.
      - aatd86 4y ago
        Well, it's not a question of "if I were the winner" , that's a pretty dumb argument (excuse my French). Reestablishing fairness would still be the same issue with simply the roles reversed. It's a question of being humane and restablishing fairness of opportunities amongst human beings. The status quo might be appealing but it can feed needless conflicts between people, sometimes on the sole basis of skin complexion. I understand that burying one's head in the sand can be appealing but that still shows a lack of accountability and a reluctance to improve Humanity imho.
coliveira 4y ago
[flagged]
- moistly 4y ago
  No “excuse” is needed to bring science to the rest of the world. If you beg to differ, please explain how we would be better served by unscientific approaches to problem-solving. IMO democracy is the least-worst political system, so no “excuse” is needed there, either.
- anthk 4y ago
  Democracy and Science are both good things.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> Historic revisionism has become very popular so as to make everyone feel better about their ancestors place in the annals of history. [...] To me it’s weird because it’s so unimportant. Who cares which groups of who were advanced or not and what they were doing back then. The short answer is: a lack of humility. Humility, which is a readiness to accept the truth (forget the common misconception which construes it as a kind of theater of lowliness), is need to accept history as it was. It is needed to accept the causes of things as they are or were, without rashness. Pride, which is antithetical to humility, leads people toward delusion, toward either chauvinism or denial and therefore away from the truth and toward agendas and what they want rather than what is in a way that is divorced from reality. So you can have chauvinists who will use their civilization's successes as a pretext to dominate others, and you can have envious people who belong to generally unimpressive civilizations and cultures who cannot accept the inferiority of their historical record according to various measures. We all know this to be the case, but we are often conditioned to fear admitting the obvious (we may be wrong in the details, but I have in mind the general principle that cultures and civilizations may be superior or inferior to others according to various measures). There is nothing to be gained from this prideful status game. If some culture or civilizations can teach us something valuable that isn't found in our own, however small or large, what conceivable reason could there be to refuse to learn from them? The only reason is pride. So, it is not insignificant that some cultures and civilizations thrived while others did not. The fruits of a civilizations are useful clues, though naturally clues that require wise interpretation. And there is no reason why one cannot be grateful for the accomplishments of his ancestors, but this is gratitude, not bragging or condescension. Charity motivates a desire to share these fruits with others. And indeed, the colonial era was a period when that did happen, even if lots of bad things also happened. We lack the ability to accept that societies are mixed, that there are bad actors and good actors. The current anti-colonial narrative is characterized by a kind of embarrassingly anti-intellectual, reductive, boorish simplemindedness. That colonialism benefited the colonized in certain ways does not contradict the valid criticisms of what occurred during that era. Pointing out the positives is not colonial apologetics. The world is not a comic book in which the world is neatly divided into good and bad people, into good and bad groups.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

parasti 4y ago

Is it weird or is it just human nature?

ninkendo 4y ago
Both. Human nature can be weird.

icegreentea2 4y ago

Reminder that historical revisionism is fundamentally just about revisiting and challenging common assumptions and doctrine. It's not accurate to ascribe a common socio-political goal to all people practicing revisionism. It is accurate to say that there are groups who revise history to achieve the purposes you describe. It would perhaps also be accurate to say that revisionists who propose histories that are more socio-politically palatable would be more generally successful.

nemo44x 4y ago
Indeed. However I believe a lot of what is being not only published but rushed into curriculums is the political type. Examples kb ES would be the 1619 project or the trend in historical movies to aggregate a group of people into a single character but sell it as factual.

jackmott 4y ago

[dead]

shmageggy 4y ago

> To me it’s weird because it’s so unimportant. Who cares which groups of who were advanced or not and what they were doing back then. The people colonizing those lands certainly cared at the time, and they used such beliefs to justify a lot of pretty awful acts. Given that the modern, western world is built on the legacy of colonialism, it's important (at least to me) to understand whether those motivating beliefs were true.

ninkendo 4y ago
I think that’s a pretty uncharitable interpretation of GP’s comment. They said you don’t need to feel better or worse about yourself due to what your ancestors did or didn’t do and when. It doesn’t mean nobody did any bad things or that we can’t learn from it, but that we shouldn’t let it cause more tribalism today. IMO, we’re all the same species, our history is littered with awful and good people, and lots of flawed people in between. The retelling of history can be a bit one-sided at times, but it’s sometimes unhealthy to fixate on it as an ongoing cause of problems today.
- aatd86 4y ago
  As long as it is not also an excuse to not undo the wrongs that often persist with such multi-generational catastrophic human problems. If I knew that everything I have is built on genocide, I would feel pretty wrong. Those who do not are probably a bit strange imho.
  - kimi 4y ago
    > If I knew that everything I have is built on genocide, I would feel pretty wrong. If I knew that everything I have is built on genocide is called human history. And I have a feeling that if the victims had been more lucky as to be the winners, they would have made more or less the same things.
    - aatd86 4y ago
      Well, it's not a question of "if I were the winner" , that's a pretty dumb argument (excuse my French). Reestablishing fairness would still be the same issue with simply the roles reversed. It's a question of being humane and restablishing fairness of opportunities amongst human beings. The status quo might be appealing but it can feed needless conflicts between people, sometimes on the sole basis of skin complexion. I understand that burying one's head in the sand can be appealing but that still shows a lack of accountability and a reluctance to improve Humanity imho.

coliveira 4y ago

[flagged]

moistly 4y ago
No “excuse” is needed to bring science to the rest of the world. If you beg to differ, please explain how we would be better served by unscientific approaches to problem-solving. IMO democracy is the least-worst political system, so no “excuse” is needed there, either.
anthk 4y ago
Democracy and Science are both good things.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

> Historic revisionism has become very popular so as to make everyone feel better about their ancestors place in the annals of history. [...] To me it’s weird because it’s so unimportant. Who cares which groups of who were advanced or not and what they were doing back then. The short answer is: a lack of humility. Humility, which is a readiness to accept the truth (forget the common misconception which construes it as a kind of theater of lowliness), is need to accept history as it was. It is needed to accept the causes of things as they are or were, without rashness. Pride, which is antithetical to humility, leads people toward delusion, toward either chauvinism or denial and therefore away from the truth and toward agendas and what they want rather than what is in a way that is divorced from reality. So you can have chauvinists who will use their civilization's successes as a pretext to dominate others, and you can have envious people who belong to generally unimpressive civilizations and cultures who cannot accept the inferiority of their historical record according to various measures. We all know this to be the case, but we are often conditioned to fear admitting the obvious (we may be wrong in the details, but I have in mind the general principle that cultures and civilizations may be superior or inferior to others according to various measures). There is nothing to be gained from this prideful status game. If some culture or civilizations can teach us something valuable that isn't found in our own, however small or large, what conceivable reason could there be to refuse to learn from them? The only reason is pride. So, it is not insignificant that some cultures and civilizations thrived while others did not. The fruits of a civilizations are useful clues, though naturally clues that require wise interpretation. And there is no reason why one cannot be grateful for the accomplishments of his ancestors, but this is gratitude, not bragging or condescension. Charity motivates a desire to share these fruits with others. And indeed, the colonial era was a period when that did happen, even if lots of bad things also happened. We lack the ability to accept that societies are mixed, that there are bad actors and good actors. The current anti-colonial narrative is characterized by a kind of embarrassingly anti-intellectual, reductive, boorish simplemindedness. That colonialism benefited the colonized in certain ways does not contradict the valid criticisms of what occurred during that era. Pointing out the positives is not colonial apologetics. The world is not a comic book in which the world is neatly divided into good and bad people, into good and bad groups.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]