MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > I don't know why people treat history bo...

I don't know why people treat history books as if they're fact.

posted 4 years ago by samoanjoes (58598)
139 replies | jump to latest

There is no way any of us can know what actually happened. It's all hypothetical. Inaccurate information can be passed down. Biased information can be passed down.

We have advanced technology now which makes it easier for us to know things, and yet we still don't know who the Zodiac killer is or what really happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, but people expect us to believe that things that happened before 1900 are accurate because they were documented that way. I mean, for all we know American slavery started because some black guy stole some white guy's horse, or that the declaration of independence was signed without pants on and they didn't want that information getting out there so they lied about it.

I'm not buying into these shenanigans that we have to open a history book to understand it.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

What a sad, cynical, distrustful and dystopian world this would be if everyone just went by 'living memory'.

Sounds like Russia in the 1950's or the 1984 novel.

I will pass on your 'living memory' thing and choose to trust historical scholars.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

And the thing is that it's more than just memory. Some people will intentionally pass off lies so that it is perpetuated in the future.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

That is when historical truths become legends.

It is a historical scholars duty to maintain a factual basis to the best of his/her ability.

The eroding effect of time has a obvious adverse effect on available facts and social currents of the era.This is what the noble profession of historian is for, to determine fact from fictionalized historical accounts.

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

It's what the US has done and continues to do so.

"WMDs"
"We won Vietnam"
"We put a benevolent leader in Cuba that the Cuban people wanted. Castro got rid of him!"
"We totally don't continually contravene Geneva conventions"

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

And "First man on the moon."

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this always seemed fishy to me.

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

Armstrong was the first man on the moon as far as we know but Yuri Gagarin beat him to space by around 7 years.

First satellite in Space = Russian
First woman in space = Russian
As well.

What about NASA landing in space in the late 60s seems....off...to you? That technology was all there. The Russians were creating the world's first ever Satellite while the US needed a PR win and invested their money in taking a pic of an astronaut on the moon.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

The USA were trying to beat the Russians to the moon. There was a lot of talk about the way the flag waved while it was on the moon and the consistency of the footsteps, then this happened: https://ca.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

I'll have a look. Thanks for the link. I never delved into stuff like this before.

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

Agree in general. American history books are especially embarassing. It's incredible how deluded and dumb a human populace can be.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

Examples?

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

Whitewashing Native genocides. Incorrect accounts of the end WW2.
I even had a little cousin who was taught (in American history in a reputable university in the south) that the US "won the Vietnam war, folks". It must be the most laughable thing I've ever heard.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

The word genocide is incorrect in regards of the American Indian wars of 1600-1900.

This word strongly implies that the fierce American Indian warriors were bunch of sea cows waiting to be slaughtered by the white man.

They weren't.

American Indians were incredibly brave warriors that killed and won many battles of these wars.

By calling these wars a genocide, you are taking a giant shit on the graves of the brave warriors who at times gave better than they took in battles.

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

Correction. I am taking a giant shit on the graves of terrorists who went around murdering native Americans. Rightfully so.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

See Apache raids.

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

Or the entire history of the Native-US conflict.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

Yes that is why genocide is a incorrect term.

It was war with atrocities committed by both sides.

Most Americans don't deny this.

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

I thik you might be getting somewhat confused. The terms "battles" and "wars" don't mean all hostility was a war.

For example, the battle of Tippecanoe wasn't. It was an order by Indiana's governor to burn down Indian villages.
And that's been the case the entire history of the States.

Moreover, you really haven't addressed anything, instead choosing to harp on the Native issue (and getting it wrong).

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

I'm pretty sure Custer lost a battle with Native American Indians.😉

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

Terrific. Still a non-sequiter. If I go around burning down villages and then end up being outvied in a later battle by a group that an axe to grind, it doesn't make me any less of a terrorist.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

Do you think the American Indians were terrorists as well?

Wouldn't Apache raids, where the tribe raped, kidnapped or killed frontier settlers also fit that definition?

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

I think the people who actuated them to defend themsleves are terrorists.

I think that the Native Americans who were minding their own business on their own lands and living peacefully are not terrorists but the terrorists Amercians who burned them down...are terrorists.

This isnt that complicated.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

Ok snowflake

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

Described yourself well there!

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

American history books make it seem like the USA is the only country that exists.

reply

[–] Ladronmc (176) 4 years ago

That isnt the biggest problem. It's the incorrect account of history that's an issue.

reply

[–] BillHicksFan (10716) 4 years ago

Especially the really old stuff. At least 50 years ago we had video and audio.. nowadays there's a lot of doctoring and manipulation.

Question everything.... The more I disagree with something the more I want to know why.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

I question a lot of stuff before 1900. If people lie and have a bias now, I can only imagine what it would have been like back then without video cameras.

reply

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 4 years ago

See Robert Caro.

Investigative historian.

Spends YEARS of researching before writing a book.

An example of is tenacity~ Caro was in the middle of writing a book on LBJ's early years. So Caro went to Johnson's home town in Texas where LBJ grew up. This was a small insular town hundreds of miles away from a big city. Caro could tell that the people were being polite to him but were holding back, he was just another reporter looking to complete a book about LBJ.

So what is the solution? How do you get people to open up and tell their true perceptions of LBJ?

Caro and his wife MOVED to that little small Texas town and lived there for three years. It worked, the people opened up and gave him a insight on LBJ that eluded most reporters.

See Robert Caro, read his books.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

I applied the dedication. Unfortunately, most people won't do that. They'll just have to accept what they're told even if it's not the truth.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Caro is not a historian of any kind. He is a researcher. Because he is a researcher, he doesn't know how to see the forest for the trees, and consequently, there are huge gaps of information in his books in spite of the excessive attention to detail.

Case in point: The Power Broker. And while everyone thinks that's one of the best researched books ever written, it completely left out one of the most significant players in Robert Moses' life--Jane Jacobs. Writing 1000+ pages on Robert Moses and leaving Jane Jacobs out is like writing a 1000-paged biography on Cleopatra and omitting Julius Caesar. This is the difference between a researcher and a writer. A researcher merely sees raw facts on a page. A historian is able to see those facts as part of a larger picture.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Well, they're supposed to be fact, because they're called history books.

reply

[–] Martoto (5191) 4 years ago

"It's all hypothetical"?

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

For the most part. Historians gather as much information that has been passed down and come up with a probable conclusion. It's impossible if the information that was passed down to them was accurate to begin with.

reply

[–] 102000 (6349) 4 years ago

delete

reply

[–] Martoto (5191) 4 years ago

Look up hypothetical in a dictionary

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

There is evidence that 1.5 million died in the Armenian genocide, but some people disprove the number. Therefore, the number is a hypothesis. If it's not factual, it's either opinion or a hypothesis.

reply

[–] Martoto (5191) 4 years ago

That's an estimate. Not a hypothesis.

I don't know of any history book that states a number as a fact if it is an estimated.

It's a fact there was genocide. A fact that people died. The reported number that died is an estimate. Therefore it is a fact that an estimated number or range of numbers died.

It's hardly a reason to denounce history books if they cannot be filled with only hard numerical facts is it?

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

I'm not denouncing history books, I'm saying that we can't look at them like they are fact without questioning it.

There is footage of the Armenian genocide. It's scarce, but it's there. There are varying opinions of why the Armenian genocide happened. There are varying opinions of how it started. And yes, there are people who even deny it happened. Just like Holocaust deniers. There are people who think that Jews were the only target during WWII. This is information that we are taught.

However, when I speak of questioning history, I'm talking more about before 1900 because technological advancements where we could actually document things.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

some historians are worked up over this writer winning the pulitzer prize

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/pulitzer-board-must-revoke-nikole-hannah-jones-prize

reply

[–] samoanjoes (58598) 4 years ago

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. We can only know so much before technology.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

i think they are rewarding her for her opinion which is ahistorical. there was plenty written about the american revolutionary war at the time and since.

reply

1
2
3