Why is there always a War over History?
October 24th 2006 05:44
Why is there always a War over History?
George Orwell once wrote ‘He who controls the Past controls the future’. We often hear that ‘those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it’. It is as if history itself has the control of our future destiny. We are seduced by romantic versions of history and would rather believe that our nation and its people are the critical pin that hold the world together. We are formed by the events of our past and those events are so unique that we have been forged as a better people. Yet the whole question of history is controversial as each historian writes out their narrative.
Is history just a blur of events interpreted by vested interests? Is history just lies made up by the winning side? There is much to be gained by investing in myths that portray events that favor one side in a conflict. By omitting certain facts a noble enemy can be portrayed as vile retched thing that does not deserve our mercy. By omitting other facts we become the cleaner than clean noble heroes who have been subjected to an unprovoked attack. How often has it be said that ‘History teaches us that…’. Unfortunately what the speaker is doing is appealing to selected portions of to prove an argument. History can also be blurred with the exaggeration of facts and the invention of facts. Before the first Gulf war a woman gave a tearful account of how the invading Iraq army stole the humid-cribs from the hospital and left the babies to do die on the floor. This speech did influence opinion to go to war even though it was proven later to be entirely false. Before World War 2 Hitler tolerated his street thug Ernst Rohm knowing that he was a homosexual. Yet when he sensed a power struggle he had Rohm arrested as a degenerate, thus showing Germany that Hitler protected their morality. Communism has also had its share of history rewriting to create propaganda for the state. ‘The Long March’ was always portrayed as a popular and spontaneous uprising. Instead recent interviews tell a story of recruiter being given quotas to fill and people forced to follow. Vladimir Lenin was portrayed as being absolutely immersed in communism as the only way of thinking. Yet his personal doubts about whether socialism was the correct path for his nation were hidden away until after communism collapsed. Even before the current Iraq war John Howard stated that he had direct evidence of a human shredding machine being operated by Saddam’s people. No such device has been found and his speeches are strangely absent of any mention of it. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ was the basis of the argument to go to the Iraq war but no one wants to admit that was the case. China still does not admit that there was a Tiananmen Square massacre, despite the evidence being overwhelming.
So why is history so important that even the unscrupulous want to cease control over its text? The answer has to do with control over people. ‘Controlling the future by controlling the past’ does not imply how this is done. People are intellectually and emotionally charged beings. An army that has a record of never being defeated can appeal for people to join the winning side. Politics can be used to create monsters out of enemies to justify destroying them. The evils that your nation has done can be blamed upon someone else. Hence history ceases to be a search for facts and truth but an extension of propaganda and lies. Myth becomes the text of the history books.
It is fear of who is writing the narrative of these myths that becomes so contentious. Would you trust a Maoist to write the history text books? Would you trust a dictator? They both have vested interests in choosing evidence to support their views. Would you even trust the government of the day to be untainted with the desire to airbrush out their mistakes and highlight the opposition’s mistakes? What of minorities that are derided by both sides of politics, what would be writing about them? Even without inventing lies evidence can be selected and cherry picked to meet a criteria. History is the happy hunting ground of the unscrupulous.
It is not the seeker of truth that we have to fear but those believe that believe history must prove their arguments we must. We will always fight over what is historically true and accurate. Yet if it is done in an open forum the evidence can be tested and added to. In a closed environment of total control even history is little more than a weapon.
George Orwell once wrote ‘He who controls the Past controls the future’. We often hear that ‘those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it’. It is as if history itself has the control of our future destiny. We are seduced by romantic versions of history and would rather believe that our nation and its people are the critical pin that hold the world together. We are formed by the events of our past and those events are so unique that we have been forged as a better people. Yet the whole question of history is controversial as each historian writes out their narrative.
Is history just a blur of events interpreted by vested interests? Is history just lies made up by the winning side? There is much to be gained by investing in myths that portray events that favor one side in a conflict. By omitting certain facts a noble enemy can be portrayed as vile retched thing that does not deserve our mercy. By omitting other facts we become the cleaner than clean noble heroes who have been subjected to an unprovoked attack. How often has it be said that ‘History teaches us that…’. Unfortunately what the speaker is doing is appealing to selected portions of to prove an argument. History can also be blurred with the exaggeration of facts and the invention of facts. Before the first Gulf war a woman gave a tearful account of how the invading Iraq army stole the humid-cribs from the hospital and left the babies to do die on the floor. This speech did influence opinion to go to war even though it was proven later to be entirely false. Before World War 2 Hitler tolerated his street thug Ernst Rohm knowing that he was a homosexual. Yet when he sensed a power struggle he had Rohm arrested as a degenerate, thus showing Germany that Hitler protected their morality. Communism has also had its share of history rewriting to create propaganda for the state. ‘The Long March’ was always portrayed as a popular and spontaneous uprising. Instead recent interviews tell a story of recruiter being given quotas to fill and people forced to follow. Vladimir Lenin was portrayed as being absolutely immersed in communism as the only way of thinking. Yet his personal doubts about whether socialism was the correct path for his nation were hidden away until after communism collapsed. Even before the current Iraq war John Howard stated that he had direct evidence of a human shredding machine being operated by Saddam’s people. No such device has been found and his speeches are strangely absent of any mention of it. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ was the basis of the argument to go to the Iraq war but no one wants to admit that was the case. China still does not admit that there was a Tiananmen Square massacre, despite the evidence being overwhelming.
So why is history so important that even the unscrupulous want to cease control over its text? The answer has to do with control over people. ‘Controlling the future by controlling the past’ does not imply how this is done. People are intellectually and emotionally charged beings. An army that has a record of never being defeated can appeal for people to join the winning side. Politics can be used to create monsters out of enemies to justify destroying them. The evils that your nation has done can be blamed upon someone else. Hence history ceases to be a search for facts and truth but an extension of propaganda and lies. Myth becomes the text of the history books.
It is fear of who is writing the narrative of these myths that becomes so contentious. Would you trust a Maoist to write the history text books? Would you trust a dictator? They both have vested interests in choosing evidence to support their views. Would you even trust the government of the day to be untainted with the desire to airbrush out their mistakes and highlight the opposition’s mistakes? What of minorities that are derided by both sides of politics, what would be writing about them? Even without inventing lies evidence can be selected and cherry picked to meet a criteria. History is the happy hunting ground of the unscrupulous.
It is not the seeker of truth that we have to fear but those believe that believe history must prove their arguments we must. We will always fight over what is historically true and accurate. Yet if it is done in an open forum the evidence can be tested and added to. In a closed environment of total control even history is little more than a weapon.
| 60 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Wendi
My own kids are homeschooled. When we did our studies on the American Revolution, we used the "standard" resources available in our public library and referenced American sources on the Internet, but then we also referenced British sources to read of their accounts as well just to make sure we were getting both sides of the story. Are we now experts who can tell you matter of factly how the events of the Revolution actually unfolded? Of course not, but we know that what we learned and they way we learned was fair to both sides.
Here's a thought: Let's say humanity as we know it ceases to exist (hence your previous post) and a new race of humans eventually comes along to replace us. Like us, they have archaeologists who unearth "artifacts" from our era. God forbid they should find copies of ruthless tabloids and record their contents as our history? Yeah, that would suck. *smirk*
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
It is humbling and makes me think that one day archiologists will be digging through our ruins trying to work us out.