8 ms·

I wonder how much of History can we trust? After all, history is written by victors. Something that was written a thousand years ago (or longer) - how can we ve

by akudha 3y ago

I wonder how much of History can we trust? After all, history is written by victors. Something that was written a thousand years ago (or longer) - how can we verify? In today’s world, how much of Netflix “documentaries” are rigorously researched and how much just made up, to save time and money? It is not like Netflix is going to get in trouble, legally or in public opinion…

emayljames 3y ago
Dare I say the bible comes to mind
- beezlewax 3y ago
  This is my number one reason not to trust anything hawkers of religion state. And paradoxically I trust new religious manuscripts even less. In the context of the modern world they just seem like obvious hoaxes.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    Getting to watch things like Mormonism (and, to some extent, Scientology, though that's a bit of a different beast) develop under conditions that provide pretty good records and a variety of disinterested accounts, has definitely been instructive for interpreting plausible courses of development of older religions. "Why would all these people lie?" "Why would so many people attest to having seen something that was actually bullshit? It must have happened!" Well... I mean, you'd think so, but not so much, it turns out.
- otteromkram 3y ago
  We could probably add in any religious documents. Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. But, that wouldn't fit the, "Christianity bad" narrative.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Sure it would. It's just that the others are also bad.
- trelane 3y ago
  How about all the historical fiction of Science or Atheism vs Christianity? Pointing out that atheism and scientism are making up and embellishing their own history is more of a controversial take in these circles.
  - quesera 3y ago
    What is the historical fiction of Atheism?
    - trelane 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - quesera 3y ago
        Ah. You've got me all wrong. And my error was in propagating your capital-A "Atheism". The sins committed against groups of humans in the name of any belief system are not the topic I was asking about. They're all terrible. Choose your idol or lack thereof. And FWIW I think that's generally not a product of the system, it's a product of people and power and resource contention. But I was asking about the historical fiction of atheism. Lots of people live without a Christian or other god, with no particular concern for how others believe or any need for a mythology to support or define their views.
        trelane 3y ago
        > You've got me all wrong. This is ironic, surely, given your response? > The sins committed against groups of humans in the name of any belief system are not the topic I was asking about. They're all terrible. Choose your idol or lack thereof. This is a Dodge. > Lots of people live without a Christian or other god, with no particular concern for how others believe or any need for a mythology to support or define their views. So you believe this is unique to atheists? Even ignoring the obvious "mythology" which rightfully can extend to common atheistic beliefs.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  There are many, many biblical texts from various centuries that agree with each other. The New Testament has twice as many ancient copies as any contemporary works. The Dead Sea scrolls are a good example of older copies being found… and they are no different from later copies.
danuker 3y ago
I am particularly salty about HBO's Chernobyl. Thunderfoot showed how misleading it was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  It was not historically accurate, but it was, nonetheless, an excellent drama.
  - quesera 3y ago
    This is why I bounce hard off of anything that could be labelled "historical fiction". I don't know enough about, e.g., the JFK assassination, to be sure that a dramatization of it isn't going to fill in the gaps and make me think I do know something that turns out to be serving the agenda of others, or simply wrong. And yes I recognize that "history" is just the consensus version of "historical fiction", and that consensus is local at best, and often also serving an agenda!
- latexr 3y ago
  That series was a historical drama, not a documentary. Ulana Khomyuk, the woman speaking at the start of that video, didn’t even exist. As acknowledged in the series itself, she was a composite of several Soviet scientists for narrative purposes. It’s not misleading to take artistic liberties in a work of fiction designed to entertain, even if based on true events. That would be damming for a documentary, but this was not one.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Pretty much any biopic or historical documentary struggles with the tension between the realities that, on the one hand, they can't completely make up everything out of whole cloth and, on the other, the writers don't want to let facts get too much in the way of a good story. But some number of people get POd when not everything is literally true.
Cacti 3y ago
frankly you can’t really trust any history. we all are the heroes of our own story.
pfdietz 3y ago
If you go to the town of Sainte-Mère-Église in Normandy, there is a manakin of a paratrooper hanging by his parachute snared on the steeple of the church. This is in reference to a well-known D-Day story, famously illustrated in the movie The Longest Day, of paratrooper John Steele. The problem is, this story is probably a fabrication. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLjLW4pkAXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLjLW4pkAXc
WalterBright 3y ago
> I wonder how much of History can we trust? The stories without corroboration, not that much, particularly if they sound too dramatic. Personally, I'd never convict anyone where the evidence was nothing more than he said she said.
mardifoufs 3y ago
Lol history absolutely hasn't been written by Victors. Not always at least. As an example, most "folk knowledge" that is widely spread about WW2 come from post war books by German generals. They spread tons and tons of myths and outright lies that permeated WW2 discussions for like 70 years now. Slowly we are starting to see that disappear but for the most part, allied narratives have taken a back seat in comparison. Especially on anything related to equipment, performance, troop competence etc.
- tivert 3y ago
  > They spread tons and tons of myths and outright lies that permeated WW2 discussions for like 70 years now. Slowly we are starting to see that disappear but for the most part, allied narratives have taken a back seat in comparison. Especially on anything related to equipment, performance, troop competence etc. Do you have examples? Does that include whole memeplex about the Nazis being somehow far better at advanced technology than the Allies?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Pretty much everything about the Nazis, about Germany, about the war in general, is written by the not victors. If you grew up watching the Discovery Channel, everything you know about WWII was written about former Wehrmacht generals in semi-autobiographical stories. Things like "If it hadn't been for Hitler being such a terrible leader, we would have won" or "The King Tiger was an Uber tank that could have won the war" to "That flying wing Heinkel made was a STEALTH BOMBER", or "Those damn Soviets were sending meat waves at us armed only with a single shovel!" Don't forget the entirety of the "Clean Wehrmacht" myth, that the whole Nazism thing was mostly contained to Hitler and the SS and the normal German army was mostly clean from the desire to gas all the jews.
    - poulsbohemian 3y ago
      I get what you are saying - but there are also elements of truth in the examples you cite. Yes, much of OKW were synchophants, but there were plenty of competent generals and opportunities that were missed because of meddling. The Tiger had major technical challenges (as did much of German armor) but it had elements of superiority over US armor. That Heinkel was certainly interesting - like so many German weapons programs, they had fascinating ideas, but they were short on resources to make them functional. And on and on - so you aren't "wrong" but I think to say all of these things are propaganda written by the losers is also not really the whole story either...
rcxdude 3y ago
"Written by victors" is not really accurate, but there is bias in who it was written by (not least, for most of history, the fact that it is somewhat tautologically written by the literate). Historians are well aware of this and will generally try to account for it by looking to corroborate accounts, but of course it's very easy to project one's own biases onto any such analysis, especially when evidence is thin.

by akudha 3y ago

emayljames 3y ago

Dare I say the bible comes to mind

beezlewax 3y ago
This is my number one reason not to trust anything hawkers of religion state. And paradoxically I trust new religious manuscripts even less. In the context of the modern world they just seem like obvious hoaxes.
- wharvle 3y ago
  Getting to watch things like Mormonism (and, to some extent, Scientology, though that's a bit of a different beast) develop under conditions that provide pretty good records and a variety of disinterested accounts, has definitely been instructive for interpreting plausible courses of development of older religions. "Why would all these people lie?" "Why would so many people attest to having seen something that was actually bullshit? It must have happened!" Well... I mean, you'd think so, but not so much, it turns out.
otteromkram 3y ago
We could probably add in any religious documents. Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. But, that wouldn't fit the, "Christianity bad" narrative.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Sure it would. It's just that the others are also bad.
trelane 3y ago
How about all the historical fiction of Science or Atheism vs Christianity? Pointing out that atheism and scientism are making up and embellishing their own history is more of a controversial take in these circles.
- quesera 3y ago
  What is the historical fiction of Atheism?
  - trelane 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - quesera 3y ago
      Ah. You've got me all wrong. And my error was in propagating your capital-A "Atheism". The sins committed against groups of humans in the name of any belief system are not the topic I was asking about. They're all terrible. Choose your idol or lack thereof. And FWIW I think that's generally not a product of the system, it's a product of people and power and resource contention. But I was asking about the historical fiction of atheism. Lots of people live without a Christian or other god, with no particular concern for how others believe or any need for a mythology to support or define their views.
      - trelane 3y ago
        > You've got me all wrong. This is ironic, surely, given your response? > The sins committed against groups of humans in the name of any belief system are not the topic I was asking about. They're all terrible. Choose your idol or lack thereof. This is a Dodge. > Lots of people live without a Christian or other god, with no particular concern for how others believe or any need for a mythology to support or define their views. So you believe this is unique to atheists? Even ignoring the obvious "mythology" which rightfully can extend to common atheistic beliefs.
jonhohle 3y ago
There are many, many biblical texts from various centuries that agree with each other. The New Testament has twice as many ancient copies as any contemporary works. The Dead Sea scrolls are a good example of older copies being found… and they are no different from later copies.

danuker 3y ago

I am particularly salty about HBO's Chernobyl. Thunderfoot showed how misleading it was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
It was not historically accurate, but it was, nonetheless, an excellent drama.
- quesera 3y ago
  This is why I bounce hard off of anything that could be labelled "historical fiction". I don't know enough about, e.g., the JFK assassination, to be sure that a dramatization of it isn't going to fill in the gaps and make me think I do know something that turns out to be serving the agenda of others, or simply wrong. And yes I recognize that "history" is just the consensus version of "historical fiction", and that consensus is local at best, and often also serving an agenda!
latexr 3y ago
That series was a historical drama, not a documentary. Ulana Khomyuk, the woman speaking at the start of that video, didn’t even exist. As acknowledged in the series itself, she was a composite of several Soviet scientists for narrative purposes. It’s not misleading to take artistic liberties in a work of fiction designed to entertain, even if based on true events. That would be damming for a documentary, but this was not one.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Pretty much any biopic or historical documentary struggles with the tension between the realities that, on the one hand, they can't completely make up everything out of whole cloth and, on the other, the writers don't want to let facts get too much in the way of a good story. But some number of people get POd when not everything is literally true.

Cacti 3y ago

frankly you can’t really trust any history. we all are the heroes of our own story.

pfdietz 3y ago

If you go to the town of Sainte-Mère-Église in Normandy, there is a manakin of a paratrooper hanging by his parachute snared on the steeple of the church. This is in reference to a well-known D-Day story, famously illustrated in the movie The Longest Day, of paratrooper John Steele. The problem is, this story is probably a fabrication. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLjLW4pkAXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLjLW4pkAXc

WalterBright 3y ago

> I wonder how much of History can we trust? The stories without corroboration, not that much, particularly if they sound too dramatic. Personally, I'd never convict anyone where the evidence was nothing more than he said she said.

mardifoufs 3y ago

Lol history absolutely hasn't been written by Victors. Not always at least. As an example, most "folk knowledge" that is widely spread about WW2 come from post war books by German generals. They spread tons and tons of myths and outright lies that permeated WW2 discussions for like 70 years now. Slowly we are starting to see that disappear but for the most part, allied narratives have taken a back seat in comparison. Especially on anything related to equipment, performance, troop competence etc.

tivert 3y ago
> They spread tons and tons of myths and outright lies that permeated WW2 discussions for like 70 years now. Slowly we are starting to see that disappear but for the most part, allied narratives have taken a back seat in comparison. Especially on anything related to equipment, performance, troop competence etc. Do you have examples? Does that include whole memeplex about the Nazis being somehow far better at advanced technology than the Allies?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Pretty much everything about the Nazis, about Germany, about the war in general, is written by the not victors. If you grew up watching the Discovery Channel, everything you know about WWII was written about former Wehrmacht generals in semi-autobiographical stories. Things like "If it hadn't been for Hitler being such a terrible leader, we would have won" or "The King Tiger was an Uber tank that could have won the war" to "That flying wing Heinkel made was a STEALTH BOMBER", or "Those damn Soviets were sending meat waves at us armed only with a single shovel!" Don't forget the entirety of the "Clean Wehrmacht" myth, that the whole Nazism thing was mostly contained to Hitler and the SS and the normal German army was mostly clean from the desire to gas all the jews.
  - poulsbohemian 3y ago
    I get what you are saying - but there are also elements of truth in the examples you cite. Yes, much of OKW were synchophants, but there were plenty of competent generals and opportunities that were missed because of meddling. The Tiger had major technical challenges (as did much of German armor) but it had elements of superiority over US armor. That Heinkel was certainly interesting - like so many German weapons programs, they had fascinating ideas, but they were short on resources to make them functional. And on and on - so you aren't "wrong" but I think to say all of these things are propaganda written by the losers is also not really the whole story either...

rcxdude 3y ago

"Written by victors" is not really accurate, but there is bias in who it was written by (not least, for most of history, the fact that it is somewhat tautologically written by the literate). Historians are well aware of this and will generally try to account for it by looking to corroborate accounts, but of course it's very easy to project one's own biases onto any such analysis, especially when evidence is thin.