WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Having studied history (including modern and contemporary history) I join the opinion of historians that your opinion is uneducated.

You can't change history - things happened the way they did.

Like usual; you've missed the point completely. History is written by the victors. Controlling the narrative allows you to create your own reality.

If that simple statement escapes your comprehension, I'm not going any further with this.

According to you, every historian misses the point completely: you can't write history, you only can write about it. You can't change history - things happened the way they did.

Nope! again you're missing the point. The victors write their own history, and guess who the historians are working for?

You really have no idea.
Whatever "historians" write or say, it doesn't chance history.

I’m surprised you’re dying on this hill. Of course, Builder is correct. There’s no question.

Textbooks written to teach me about the European population of North America focused on the indomitable spirit, innovation, bravery of European colonists. We saw lovely pictures of the first Thanksgiving—natives of he continent being welcomed to a celebratory first harvest…. We were not told of the Trail of Tears, the innumerable betrayals of natives, the massacres of native villages. These truths did eventually find their way into textbooks. It took decades.

The same with the US racial issues. The victor whitewashed events to change the narrative. It took decades for facts to start creeping in.

Currently, the victor is writing their preferred narrative about Assange, Snowden, and other patriots and journalists who revealed facts about power. Jeffery Epstein was threatening to blow the lid off power. The truth is still hidden.

The winner writes history. After decades, the truth may prevail. It may not.

You know this.

"It is the victor who writes the history and counts the dead."


I don't doubt at all that the winner writes the history books, at least quite often.

But the facts of the history can't be changed - thanks to the axiliary sciences of history even trying is noticed.
Didn't they teach you such at university?

Clearly not Dee Brown.

Historiography is often a lie.
The winners set the tone, they decide what ends up in the textbooks. The losers, however, have to live with the consequences, they cannot justify themselves.
But what is the actual situation with the historiography of the winners? Are the losers really demonised throughout?

As is so often the case, the answer is a resounding yes. This becomes particularly clear with the example of two battles - the Battle of Cortenouva and the Battle of the Marchfeld - and four of their sources. In both, two medieval sources were analysed by sympathisers of the winners. In both, the portrayal of the losers differs drastically. Thus the Lombards - the losers of Cortenuova - are described in one source as an unlawful cooperative, cowardly and military cannon fodder, in the other as courageous, if misguided, competent fighters. Ottokar - the defeated of the Marchfeld - is characterised on the one hand as a brave and noble tragic hero, and on the other hand as a largely disloyal and diabolical general who is not above using poison and witchcraft.
All these authors, however, were unmistakably actually on the side of the victors. Nevertheless, the differences could hardly be more drastic. Only one question remains: why?

The authors' actual motivation can only be guessed at today. Literary scholars speak of the so-called "intentional fallacy": what was going on in the minds of the writers is actually known only to them - unless it has been handed down to us.
But one thing is obvious: the division of history into victors and vanquished is too simplistic.


The auxiliary sciences of history encompass medieval and modern paleography, diplomatics, archival studies, archaeology, codicology, sigillography, heraldry, numismatics, epigraphy, chronology, genealogy. (Some universities even teach more subjects.)
For those interested in history: Virtual Library: Historical Auxiliary Sciences (website only partly in English)

Yes. They taught me to the victor goes the spoils—and that includes the pen that writes history.

So, you're admitting that the victor makes up their own version of history, and then saying that their story is factual, and can't be altered?

This is where you're clearly demonstrating a loose rack upstairs.

A bag clearly short of a few marbles.

What they indoctrinated you with, in university, was an acceptance of anything you were told.

You clearly didn't learn anything useful. Like critical thinking.

Other than, repeating the lies you accepted as facts.

You (and apparently Lash as well) are confusing written versions of historical events with the actual historical events themselves.

And surprisingly that was taught at Lash's university.

Present some examples, because your comment is confusing, at best, and alluding to disparaging content at worst.

It's an advantage to know the differences between the terms historical revisionism and historical distortion, too. (But that's mainly taught in courses at MA-/graduate level in the USA as far as I could find out.)

Must be an historical advantage, Walter.

All learning is advantageous.

Against my better judgment...

When I was a kid I learned that "America won WWII and defeated the Axis powers". I learned about the various battles where the our troops defeated the enemy and I learned about various events in the war. What I didn't learn – until college – was the role played by the Soviet Union. None of the facts changed; D-Day still occurred, Dresden was firebombed, Hess defected, two atomic bombs were used on Japan. But I would now consider it historically inaccurate to ignore the contribution of the Soviet forces. I realize that the version I was taught as a kid was centered around a pro-US narrative (which is not the least bit surprising or unusual; all countries do this). A more objective appraisal of the same historical events is easier as we achieve more distance from emotional and political considerations and assume a wider perspective.

his·to·ry
/ˈhist(ə)rē/

1.
the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.
"medieval European history"

2.
the whole series of past events connected with someone or something.
___________________
Obv you and your tittering friend are expending great energy and pixels arguing about 2 when you know we are talking about 1.

(sigh)

Even with the Soviet Union perspective; when the US entered the war, Germany realized that they made a mistake in creating a major 2 front war and had to move major assets from the Eastern front. This and the weather allowed a major advantage for Russia. The US also provided major supplies to Russia to strengthen their forces.

Not really that much energy. How would I know what you were talking about since you hadn't made it clear until this post? It seemed to me that you and your tittering friend – the guy who said, "It is the victor who writes the history and counts the dead" – were arguing that, subsequent to an actual historical event, historians can actually change what happened when they write accounts which conform to the views of the powerful. This is misconceived. Your tittering friend added, "Controlling the narrative allows you to create your own reality." Your own reality has nothing to do with factual history, it is merely a convenient way of telling a story from a favorable, rather than an objective, position.