Guys, I know that you want to have a lively debate about this but IMO, it's always best to leave topics like this alone.
The reason why is that threads like these are tools of disinformation. To put it another way, the entire purpose is to act as a launching pad to sow disinformation as the debate gets going, as well as disseminate disinfo talking points.
For example, if you scroll down, you will see the OP lying about how historians attacked the movie Lincoln over how Daniel-Day Lewis portrayed him, when the opposite is the case. You will see nonsense about the origins of slavery being up in the air, when there are thousands upon thousands of documents, journals, eyewitness accounts, receipts and even illustrations that establish how and why the slave trade happened.
You will also see disinfo agents floating the classic talking point, "History is written by the victors." History has never been written by the victors. It's written by historians. Now, folk history, on the other hand...that's another issue. But history is written by historians.
But that's neither here nor there. The point is that the nature behind these kinds of posts are cynical. Less important to the OP in kickstarting any debate is using the debate as a means to disseminate disinfo and sow seeds of doubt in those very institutions that society depends on to function properly. That's all.
reply
share
Furienna (3375)
4 years ago
You will also see disinfo agents floating the classic talking point, "History is written by the victors." History has never been written by the victors. It's written by historians. Now, folk history, on the other hand...that's another issue. But history is written by historians.
But you seem to forget that historians through the ages have been very likely to write what the ruling elite wants.
I posted a clear example of this earlier in this thread.
reply
share
samoanjoes (58599)
4 years ago
Exactly. A historian can do all the research they want, that doesn't mean that the information provided to them was accurate to begin with.
reply
share
samoanjoes (58599)
4 years ago
I didn't lie. From the link I gave you:
Lincoln historian Harold Holzer explained to CBS News, "He died long before audio recording was possible, so we have no hints about what he really sounded like except in the reminiscences of his contemporaries."
Holzer, who has studied that written record extensively as chairman of the Lincoln Bicentennial Celebration, said in his view, the actors have mostly gotten it wrong.
Holzer said Gregory Peck's portrayal in "The Blue and the Gray" 1982 miniseries is "much too deep!"
As for legendary actor Henry Fonda's portrayal, Holzer said, "Henry Fonda sounds like Henry Fonda. It's one of the best voices that ever was, but it's Nebraska, it's not Indiana or Kentucky."
Referring to Hal Holbrook's Lincoln in the six-hour TV series "Sandburg's Lincoln" Holzer said, " "None of these actors, maybe with the exception of Holbrook, ever really worked on the accent."
That is, until now.
In Steven Spielberg's new film "Lincoln," Daniel Day-Lewis takes on the larger-than-life character who, according to historians, had a smaller-than-expected voice.
reply
share