Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

That is drivel. We know far more about the history of that brief period in Imperial Japan in which the Ministers of the Army and Navy took over executive power than we do about our own revolution. The records and the personal writings which are the sources for that information are intact; at least thousands, if not millions, of Japanese survive from that era, which only lasted from 1923 to 1945. You're trying awfully hard to defend a specious thesis: "History is written by the victors"--which you used without giving any real thought to what it meant.

As i've pointed out, Napoleon is the source of that crap statement about history. Napoleon issued bulletins at the conclusion of any of his campaigns, and on the occasion of any victories on the battlefield, as well as on quite a few occasions on which there was no victory. The French people developed a saying which survived into the 20th century: "Lies like a bulletin." They weren't taken in by his self-promoting BS, it's a shame so many others continue to be so taken in.

When it comes to history, don't mess with the doggie....I also have to agree with Setanta regarding aka's thesis. It's weak. I don't know much about Japan, but I do know about Jews, and to suggest that the Holocaust "transformed" a passive people into an active people is complete crap. Yes, it was a pivotal event in recent history for the Jews, but if you look through thousands of years of history, Jews were never "passive". They would not exist today, if that were true, period.

Good points, Cav.

In fact, history is written by gnomish scholars who spend their days (and often their nights) researching obscure works in exactly the same manner and applying exactly the same rules of evidence of a prosecutor investigating a crime. It is no accident or coincidence that pre-law students major in history. By akaM's theory, no murderer would ever be convicted, because the victim would have ceased to exist, and therefore all memory of them would be erased, leaving no evidence for a conviction--as a thesis, it is the purest BS.

Sorry Setanta, You have a very pure or naive view of history as it is presented to the masses.

History is not presented as a cold conglomeration of facts. That is what it probably should be but nobody would buy the book. History as it is commonly used is probably more the interpretation of facts. And I am afraid they (the interpretations) are hopelessly biased.

Look at the trouble with the Texas school board for instance.
It's another thread - Philosophy and Debate Forum on A2K.

Although I still disagree with Setana about his assertions I didn't provide enough back up for my statements (an essay, lecture material, a philosophical concept, an entire book expanding on literary symbolism comparing g-d and the sea),
I agree with him about opposing "history is written by the victors." I made a post refering to it earlier, although I think I originally thought it was Setana who said that. To say the non-victors have no record is extreme oversimplification.

I have a bias toward the data as I have been able to find it, on a given issue, myself, but don't mind leaps by everybody looking at data, or levels of data with levels of leaping.

I would prefer not to see everyone quite so sure of themselves, lecturing others, on either the beginning slim data end of discussion, or the accomplished searcher/analyzer end. We are all on a continuum of thinking, whether or not our thoughts continue from each other's.

As a not quite newcomer to the religion and politics forums, I am a little amazed at the lack of moderating phrases such as 'I think', or in my opinion, or 'it seems to me'. Much of what sets folks off is not the judgemental opinions whirling about, but the generally aggressive dictums(a) of others' views.

Why are dictates and slams so much a part of questions? Personally, I am always trying to weed those phrases and sentences out so I can think about the issues.

I appreciate your honesty in that remark. I would point out to you that i've never disputed that people have compared a deity to the sea as a literary strophe--rather, i've consistently stated that this does not justify a broad generalization that people once believed that their deity inhabited the ocean. I'll stick with that--you can't make a case for such a broad statement from references to literary constructs, a realm which never has had any necessary relationship to popular beliefs.

My view of history has nothing to do with the claptrap which is presented to "the masses" (how very elitist of you) in elementary and secondary school as history. As for the Texas textbook fiasco, that's been going on for more than a generation--i recall in the late seventies laughing out loud when it was reported that their standard secondary history text listed Truman as President at the time of Pearl Harbor. A much larger issue is that textbook publishers are getting fewer and fewer, and those who now dominate the industry are so motivated by the fear of political rectitude criticisms from the right and the left that they remove anything which might be the least controversial from their texts. This is completely inimical to the study of history, of course; it is also, however, a handicap to the other subjects covered in textbooks. Additionally, school boards all over the country, not simply in Texas, are haunted by the same fear of being criticized for being "politically incorrect" by either the right or the left, that they attempt to quietly pass over these issues. Both NPR's national news programming, as well as our local NPR talk radio station (which is far more conservative than right wing extremists tend to characterize NPR stations) have done stories about state school boards which attempt to adopt textbooks in secret, to avoid the justifiable outcry of those who object to the intellectual pablum most of them contain.

You know nothing of either my knowledge of history or of historiography. I'll tell you what--don't tell me i'm naive about how history is taught, and i won't tell you that you displayed such a thorough ignorance of the subject of historiography here that i have no respect for your opinions on the subject.

Setanta,

Didn't mean to get your goat with the description of "naive". I also have been termed a "naive realist". I bear the label with some fortitude. Actually I am kind of proud of it.

IF you are indeed a historian, and I suspect that you are much more interested in it than I am a certain "naivety" would be necessary. In any attempt to transmit information it is necessarily condensed. Then the bias that I am so concerned about steps in.

A naive look at things is an attempt to look at things without bias. Or trying to figure the bias out and allow for it when you personally are attempting to understand something. This could also be considered an attempt to separate theory from fact.

So history as it is availiable to the masses would be better defined as "an interpretation of history". You would be well advised to consider any biases the historian may have.

This again is the basis for my concurrence with the observation that "history is written by the victors" .

Your comment to cav that no murder would ever be convicted simply proves the point. The best you can do in a murder trial is come up with an interpretation of the events which hopefully suit the jury. The actual knowledge of the event is dead. Or not required to testify in this case.

I will look back and see if you comment but IMO there's little profit in argueing an observation.

Dead men tell no tales Have a good evening, M

Cav, Aparently there was a substantial change in the popular Jewish attitudes about the middle of the twenteth century. That is speculation.
Israel is the fact. How it came to be is history. Facts mixed with speculation. Thats is also called a verdict in the murder trial.

Speaking of murder trials, dead men tell plenty of tales. My roomate is a forensic pathologist, and let me tell you she hears lots of tales from dead men. The police who investigate the crime hear the tales of everyone close to and associated with the dead man, getting insight into what happened. What about people who write? Do autobiographies cease to exist after people have died? Are people erased from memory, extinguished?
Jesus, if he was a real man (which I think he was) died. And look at how much we hear about him. Sure, it is biased information, filtered through speech, editings, translations, etc. But I would still say that there are many tales being told by Jesus, and by Malcolm x and martin luther king, by the native american tribe of the Mandan (who were killed by smallpox)... Humans use spoken word, writing, painting, movies - and all kinds of forms of record keeping. Not only the victors have the ability to construct record.

Portal, No, can't do it. Forensic science is a detective and coroners interpretation of events.

An autobiography is a persons interpretation of his life. Also never written whilst dead.

A biography is a life interpreted by a writer.

Not to belabor a small point (too much time in philosophy )

All writings, including historical ones are interpretations. As such they are subject to the approval of the victors. Conciously or unconciously.

Some are right on the money. Some aren't. C'est la vie

Can't give it up, can ya . . .

What a loon . . .

I see what you're getting at, but that's getting more into philosophy of experience and individualism than history. From a historical standpoint, I think it's a silly view to say that -everything- is altered/written by the victors, and people should be aware of bias but not discredit all historical information (many people do) because of an assumed victor-bias. To do so is A) untrue and B) unhelpful.

Very diplomatically put, PS.

History is usually not written by either victors or vanquished, but by someone else who researches the documents remaining from both sides.

Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Sir John Harington

Shouldn't that go in the patriotrism thread?

I thought it fit rather nicely here.

Frank, So didn't I

PS about ten posts to make the point that one should always be aware of bias. Glad this isn't brain sugery .