I would suggest that there is but one history - reported with greater or lesser accuracy, and that vast and mighty scorn should be heaped upon those who deliberately vary from delivering an accurate recounting of facts to the best of their ability to either heap disdain or praise upon historic persons and events disproportionate to said persons or events demonstrable effect on subsequent events
Those who do so from ignorance or an excess of passion are deserving of only a slightly lesser degree of scorn.
In some era's one group or another is more influential or turns up a winner to a greater extent than others. Frequently achieving that is not accomplished through the distribution of fairy dust and exhibition of noble character - history is a tale of chicanery, violence, tragedy, and tears interspersed with brief moments of triumph of the human spirit and even more rarely of virtue.
Trying to use history to validate or denigrate any particular group deprives us of histories most important lessons - the "gee, that was a good idea" or "hrm, we should NEVER EVER do that" moments that history offers so we may advance as a species and perhaps avoid the worst of our moments as a species.
To only tell part, or to disproportionately emphasize or deprecate of any part of history is to steal that knowledge and experience from us all.
1 comment:
Well, as we know, 'revisionist' history is alive and well in many institutions- What you've posted just takes it to the next level... dammit...
Post a Comment