this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
330 points (100.0% liked)
196
17790 readers
472 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Heavens help you if an ancient Greek or Roman author happens to have disliked you...
History is written by the conquerors.
To the victor goes the spoils, as they say.
Pretty simplistic. There are examples of marginalised narratives winning out.
some decent examples in this stackexchange thread: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5597/is-history-always-written-by-the-victors
I remember stumbling on more academic criticism somewhere but I'm honestly just too lazy to find it :)
Really I think the more interesting thing to point out and discuss is that history is written by people, with ideologies, for reasons. When we examine history we need to ensure we try to do so from a variety of perspectives and with an open mind as even the best scholars making their best efforts to be fair will not describe history objectively. That is an impossible task.
At best we can hope to identify where interpretations are disputed and what the reasons for that are. E.g. lack of evidence, value differences, political motives etc.
Simplistic, but marginalized narratives were also burned in big bonfires at times, as well.
Sorry I don't follow. I think we agree that if nobody survives or people are forced to exist in a hostile culture it's harder for them to propagate their stories.
But if we go too far we ignore the work of the brilliant people who did manage to preserve their account of events. From Indian perspectives on Indian war of independence vs Sepoy Uprising, to native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Maori people and so on fighting generational struggles to preserve their recounting of events and be acknowledged.
Show me where I said all marginalized narratives were burned.
But also, some WERE burned. Lost to history. Gone. As if they never happened.
I didn't say that you thought that and I definitely don't mean to. Are you having a bad day or something? is this a cross cultural communication issue?
All I'm saying is that history being written by the victors is a bit simplistic and not very interesting in terms of how to understand history. If you're interested in history I would have thought you'd be keen to look at examples of narratives that refute that popular trope. I meant no offense.
Fair enough. It's hard to read tone on the internet. Sorry for that.
I'll check out some of your articles/books, sure.
You don't follow my thought process, or you're being willfully obtuse?
I don't really know why you replied to my comment with that, nor why you're being hostile right now
Because you've put words in my mouth.
He didn't, but I will.
Sorry, I'm a huge fucking baby and I get so angry I shit my pants when people disagree with whatever opinion I thoughtlessly fire off
Dude, gross, keep it to yourself
The last thing I want to do is engage with you, but let's talk this out.
I said to the victor goes the spoils.
He said, "simplistic, a lot of conquered people told their stories."
I said, "I never said they didn't, but a lot of those stories were lost because conquerors are particular about their narratives."
And that's really it. I'm not at work now, so the language is a little less compressed on my end. I had to get to the point yesterday.
Damn I guess historians just repeat sources all day without any sense of critical thinking.
"Woe to the vanquished"
『tosses sword onto the scale』
What is neat is that after the people in those oppressive regimes faking the news die the archeological evidence they leave behind paints a much clearer image. Even more recent stuff like the move of the Benin Bronzes into the British Museum in 1897, after they were forcibly taken from Nigerian natives in the Kingdom of Benin when a British Diplomat thought it apt to kill the king and loot the palace instead. They were, for decades, known as upright officials, but now the entire world has a very complete timeline of every single action they took on their atrocity filled adventure.
Even things as far back as the western history of Greece and Egypt that people are so accustomed to has been thoroughly examined and refuted by archaeological evidence.
The only cases where this isn't true, yet, is when literally nothing was left behind by the invaders: like with the Catholic Crusades against the Vikings in the 12th and 13th century, destroying some of their languages and cultures completely. Someday, though, we might know more about what they believed in or how to read their runes instead of taking the Church's word for it.
Ancient marble statues weren't white. They were colored
HEY! Hey, they were statues of colour (SOC).
Especially recent history. For an instance it took three hundred years for the french monarchy to recognize how Jean d'Arc wasn't a witch and saved France.
Our only source is a book from a guy who lived three generations later and a month on sea away. Guess this will have to do.
“History is a set of lies agreed upon”
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Not the forbidden forest