Is History written by the winners?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackVk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JackVk

Guest
My older brother has gotten me into the Game of Thrones fandom. One theme of the series is the importance of political power. My brother brought up the idea in question, about how those in positions of power are able to manipulate perceptions of reality, regardless of whether said perceptions are objectively true. One character puts it: “power rests where people believe it rests”.

I retorted with the Fulton Sheen quote, that "truth is truth even if nobody believes it. My brother said that, for all intents and purposes, what is really true is irrelevant because of public perception.

So what do you think?
 
What do you mean by “history”? I checked ‘no’ because in academia, at least, History as a discipline has taken a turn towards examining the powerless in societies - the peasants, the farmers, the disenfranchised, etc. and critically examining historical stories very closely.
 
History is often written by the winners, though sometimes the losers get in a few words.
Being a winner or a loser is no guarantee of the truthfulness of history. Henry Ford said, “History is bunk.” There is much to be said for and against this proposition. As with many generalizations of those who have little acquaintance with philosophy, they are too far wide of the mark. Truthful history is most often written by truth tellers. How to distinguish the truth tellers from the liars or those with a dog in the fight is the problem.
 
So your brother believes that all those history scholars and writers are just making stuff up? I guess holocaust denial is really a-ok then on his view?
 
well, by world’s standard, Jesus is a loser for not doing anything to prevent his crucifixion. but by the Truth’s standard, Jesus is a winner for obeying the truth until the end.

for that, He has set history onward.
 
Yes. Of course it is.

And I think some people are erroneously equating “truth” with “history.”

Truth IS truth, yes.

But History is often only partial truth or sometimes outright lies.

The winners get to write the “official history” (until it’s revised later on, something I’m very thankful is done more and more these days) because they control the means of discourse, dissemination, propaganda, and the systems by which the living out of that history is reified and controlled.
 
“History” is misunderstood by many.

History includes events, chronology, and historiography.

An event alone, does not give us the understanding of history.

Even the chronology of several events does not give us the understanding of history.

And, historiography, only tells us how writers of history chose to interpret events and chronology. And, historiography changes over time. This change in historiography gives rise to what many refer to as “revisionism” or revisionist history"…and, to the non-historian, it causes quite an uproar.

When historiography changes, history does not change…the event still took place, and where it fits in a chronology of events usually does not change that much (unless new facts are uncovered)…so the claim of irate non-historians claiming historians are revising history is wrong…what they may be changing is the interpretation of history…and this interpretation might be where the thought that axiomatic, “history is written by the winners” comes from.

Like it or not, the study of history, is fascinating, and one of the purest of academic endeavors…History is studied for the sake of history, and the other two meritless statements concerning the study of history is: 1) History repeats itself…no it does not…similar events take place, and seem to be a repletion of a past event, but when studied at a closer level, there are usually more differences than similarity in events, and 2) “we study history so we do not have to repeat past mistakes”…as much as I wished it worked that way, it just doesn’t…its painfully apparent, judging from our inability to prefect righteousness by studying scripture, church teachings, the CCC, etc., we still err.

Peace and all Good!
 
Does power rest where the people believe it rests?

To some extent, power is a fruit of perception, but not entirely. People can exercise influence and control without the public knowing it. In fact, if a person or group is unknown or appears insignificant, or if their power appears limited to a particular domain, they are all the more in a position to exercise certain kinds of control and influence. They may in fact influence or control how history is written – but it may be in their best interests not to be remembered, or (at least for a time) to be remembered as less significant than they really were, at least in certain events. As in the case of certain government agencies or war heroes.
 
I voted ‘yes’ but, IMO, it is both/neither. In the begining the winners write it but later the losers also get some of the say (like the Civil War). 🙂 🤷
 
I don’t think history in general is written by the winners at the time. History is written by the people who are winning (these days mostly those who are winning in academia) at the time the history is being written.

–Jen
 
tabycat said:
I voted ‘yes’ but, IMO, it is both/neither. In the begining the winners write it but later the losers also get some of the say (like the Civil War). 🙂 🤷
Click to expand...
Not to mention, our side in the Vietnam war.

The truth about the past becomes more inaccessible every year, as people go into death and physical evidence goes into entropy. One thing I for one am thankful for is that modern revisionism has shown just how subjective history can become.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Not to mention, our side in the Vietnam war.

The truth about the past becomes more inaccessible every year, as people go into death and physical evidence goes into entropy. One thing I for one am thankful for is that modern revisionism has shown just how subjective history can become.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
You wrote, “Not to mention, our side in the Vietnam war.”

I believe that I heard him right and this concerns a friend of mine who was in high school in the mid 80’s, 1980’s that is, and he said that he was taught that we won the war in Vietnam.

Sounds to me that it is not just a case of the winners or losers writing history but also the prejudices and/or preconceived notions of who is writing it.

I would think that the video footage of 30 April 1975 just might give a different perspective of the USA winning that war.

The “distortions” of history come from many different reasons.
 
No, the truth eventually surfaces. I know eyewitnesses to war. No, I don’t know anything secret but I do buy books from foreign countries. In the case of World War II, the Germans have published more American documents than I’ve seen in American history books. And the ironic thing is some of their sources are from our National Archives.

The history of the Vietnam War has been written correctly by some authors. We did not win.

Peace,
Ed
 
There is political theatre. And the agreements made behind closed doors.
The social truth v. the real truth.
Only some know the real truth and not merely the social one.

God sees everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top