Or...histoy is written by the victors. Jesus may not have been white and blue eyed but the victorious Christians have certainly made it that way. Today, we know Asian Nazis weren't real but tomorrow? Who would have thought we would be arguing over gender definitions twenty years ago? I suspect the future will be filled with all manner of…
Or...histoy is written by the victors. Jesus may not have been white and blue eyed but the victorious Christians have certainly made it that way. Today, we know Asian Nazis weren't real but tomorrow? Who would have thought we would be arguing over gender definitions twenty years ago? I suspect the future will be filled with all manner of historical inaccuracies thanks to AI and whomever is governing at the time.
I actually thought about including a line about this, but it would have ended p being a distraction from the main point.
In short no, I think this is an outdated notion at best. History is written by the people it happened to. There was a time where those people lacked the resources to have their stories told. But today, we have access to so much information that it's almost impossible for the "victors" (however you define that term when it comes to most of history), to hide the other side of most stories. Genocides, for example, are by definition the stories of the losers. Yet we know about them.
What *is* possible though, is for people to be too complacent to seek out the other side of the story. Some people have never asked themselves why nobody in Bethlehem looks like Jesus and the apostles as they're usually depicted. And they ignore it when other people ask.
The arguments about gender are basically the opposite problem, where there are people who *have* asked themselves what gender means and thought about where the concept goes and people who think its better to ignore those questions and simply repeat the dogma.
I am left to wonder, is the current history focus on victims is leading to the victim mentality and scorn of the perceived victimizers? Or is the victim mentality leading to the half-truth history that is being presented at this time?
Or...histoy is written by the victors. Jesus may not have been white and blue eyed but the victorious Christians have certainly made it that way. Today, we know Asian Nazis weren't real but tomorrow? Who would have thought we would be arguing over gender definitions twenty years ago? I suspect the future will be filled with all manner of historical inaccuracies thanks to AI and whomever is governing at the time.
"Or...histoy is written by the victors"
I actually thought about including a line about this, but it would have ended p being a distraction from the main point.
In short no, I think this is an outdated notion at best. History is written by the people it happened to. There was a time where those people lacked the resources to have their stories told. But today, we have access to so much information that it's almost impossible for the "victors" (however you define that term when it comes to most of history), to hide the other side of most stories. Genocides, for example, are by definition the stories of the losers. Yet we know about them.
What *is* possible though, is for people to be too complacent to seek out the other side of the story. Some people have never asked themselves why nobody in Bethlehem looks like Jesus and the apostles as they're usually depicted. And they ignore it when other people ask.
The arguments about gender are basically the opposite problem, where there are people who *have* asked themselves what gender means and thought about where the concept goes and people who think its better to ignore those questions and simply repeat the dogma.
I am left to wonder, is the current history focus on victims is leading to the victim mentality and scorn of the perceived victimizers? Or is the victim mentality leading to the half-truth history that is being presented at this time?