> While it is true that complete unbiased understanding of past events is impossible, that does not therefore make it unimportant to try for.
Agreed. But as long as you understand that history is ultimately propaganda. There isn't an objective truth buttressing it. Just arbitrary biased interpretation.
> The point of history is not agreed upon lies.
It's an agreed upon "interpretation" by a small group of people who get a larger group of people to accept it. Different nations have different histories of the same event. The vietnamese history of the vietnam war is markedly different than the US history of the vietnam war. Same event, different "interpretation/propaganda".
> That's an unethical concession.
It's an honest observation. National histories are biased propaganda. To believe otherwise is to delude oneself. Perhaps some take the propaganda/history to extreme degrees, but nevertheless, all history is propaganda.
> The point of history is to tell what happened.
No. That would be just a list of events. History is INTERPRETATION. Saying that the Civil War began in 1861 is just a fact. Interpreting that as a war over slavery or a war to save the union or the war for state rights or whatever is HISTORY/PROPAGANDA.
> Propagandized history is immoral.
Then all history should be banned and replaced with a list of events.
Think of it this way, history of the US from a white man's perspective is far different than history of the US from a native american's perspective. History of the holocaust would be much different had the germans won ww2 than what it is today. Same event, different history/interpretation.
It's quite amazing that I'm getting downvoted for stating that history is biased and all history is propaganda. But then again, most people are brainwashed. Ultimately, we may laugh at the north koreans or the chinese or the russians or whomever, but we are really deep down, no different.
Something that is unusual about modern West is we make it possible to publish all the different perspectives, and we have an ethic in academia to study them objectively and try to figure out which is correct. I think that is a very good idea, and often it is possible to arrive at the truth, at least to some significant degree. So for instance, we can be quite sure that the Nazi idea that the Jews needed to be killed off because they were all evil demons was simply wrong.
> Something that is unusual about modern West is we make it possible to publish all the different perspectives
I think we have to stop patting ourselves on the back. Yes, we claim to allow it, but it's a bit more complicated than that. We aren't as open to questioning or "heresy" as you'd like to think. If you've ever worked in academia, you would know this.
> and we have an ethic in academia to study them objectively and try to figure out which is correct.
This is absolutely not true, especially in history and sensitive matters like race, sex, religion, etc.
> So for instance, we can be quite sure that the Nazi idea that the Jews needed to be killed off because they were all evil demons was simply wrong.
Not if the germans had WON THE WAR. That's the point. Look at how differently "history/propaganda" works when it relates to US:natives and Germany:Jews.
Our history cast the natives as savage demons that needed to be wiped out for the advance of civilization and the creation of the US. We make allowances for the genocide of the natives by excusing it with "disease killed many of them" or that it allowed for the creation of the US. But for jews, we do not make such allowances.
If you think we are open to different perspectives, try to get a book published that questions many of the claims of the holocaust. If jared diamond had written about the holocaust ( excusing the deaths of the jews due to the disease and starvation as a result of germany's poor performance in the eastern front ), do you really think the NYTimes/media and academia would have supported it?
All history is propaganda. If the germans had won ww2, the holocaust would have been viewed differently. Hell the word "holocaust" wouldn't even exist. Holocaust was a term israeli jews invented in 1953 to "brand" the genocide. We don't have a branding for the native "holocaust". Or the armenian "holocaust". Or the rwandan "holocaust".
Pick anything in history. Look at the "history" of the israeli/palestine issue. Look at the history of russia/ukraine. Look at the history of US civil war. Different sides have different histories/propaganda. There is no truth, just subjective and selfish propaganda.
Or if you feel more generous, you can say that there are many truths and each side picks their own truths. But regardless, it's propaganda.
I find it laughable how people are so resistent to the simple truth that history is propaganda. But then I realize that it's because they are victims of propaganda.
>This is absolutely not true, especially in history and sensitive matters like race, sex, religion, etc.
What in heavens name are you talking about? There are countless books and articles published in this country, in and out of academia, describing and condemning oppression of blacks, women, and gays. On the last group, this has helped lead to a revolution in recent years in gay rights.
And the reason this is possible is because the US, while it has many faults, is still a democracy with freedom of speech, unlike many authoritarian regimes such as China.
Speaking of which, are you saying we should not be angry at China for re-writing history because it is impossible for any country to be any better? And ditto for other regimes such as Putin's Russia? But you are simply wrong, some countries are vastly better.
> There are countless books and articles published in this country, in and out of academia, describing and condemning oppression of blacks, women, and gays.
Now. Try to publish anything that portrays blacks, women and gays negatively.
> On the last group, this has helped lead to a revolution in recent years in gay rights.
You mean the relentless hollywood/academic propaganda campaign helped in the revolution? Yes I know.
> And the reason this is possible is because the US, while it has many faults, is still a democracy with freedom of speech, unlike many authoritarian regimes such as China.
We have "freedom of speech" when the elite support the agenda. The elite supported gay marriage/etc. Hence why the media, academia, etc pushed for it while the population resisted. As I said, you couldn't publish anything that negatively portray gays.
> Speaking of which, are you saying we should not be angry at China for re-writing history because it is impossible for any country to be any better?
No. I'm saying everyone re-writes history. Everyone makes it up. Everyone interprets it for their own political agenda. That's all I'm saying. For example, we view george washington as a great founder of the nation. Others view him as a genocidal maniac who went around exterminating natives and skinning them and making leggings out of them. Every nation has propaganda/history. That's what it is created for. History is fiction that unites us all. It is created by the people in power for a purpose.
> And ditto for other regimes such as Putin's Russia?
They have their own history/propaganda as well.
> But you are simply wrong, some countries are vastly better.
"Vastly"? No. Superficially, maybe. Some "history/propaganda" are more sophisticated and clever. Other's, like north korea's history, are silly and immature. Either way, it's all propaganda.
Be angry at china if you want. All I'm saying is that everyone pushes history/propaganda. The fact that you think your "history/propanda" is better just shows that you support that "history/propaganda". Has nothing to do with whether that history is accurate/truthful/etc.
You think your history is better because of your bias, self-interest, agenda, etc. You think your history is better because you grew up with it.
>Now. Try to publish anything that portrays blacks, women and gays negatively.
Lots gets published negative about those groups. Take the best-selling book <The Bell Curve> which argues that blacks have lower iq's. You say the elites push an agenda, but often that is because non-elites persuaded them to change their views. For instance, gays were pariah's until recently.
>I'm saying everyone re-writes history. Everyone makes it up. Everyone interprets it for their own political agenda.
That's simply not true. Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be persuaded by arguments. Lots of people are willing to change their political philosophy if they are presented with reasons. I know I have changed my views on a number of important issues over the years. It is a slow process, but it happens a lot in this country. Look at how the conservative movement rose from nothing over the course of decades, fighting the elites all the way. Just because you are not objective and open to persuasion doesn't mean everyone else in the world is like you.
You know, in some countries of the world the government is so oppressive that is impossible to work to make things better, but in other countries it is possible, at least some of the time, but to do that generally requires an accurate understanding of the past. What you are saying is it is impossible to get this, and the implication is that it is impossible to make the world better. Is that what you believe? Note when I say make the world better, I mean according to a set of universal values, not ones that favor your group or country over all others. Apparently you believe such values don't exist, have I got you right on that?
I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to look at history objectively. I can think of three possible reasons. One is that you just have a cynical personality. The second is you are just selfish and don't care. The third is that you are being paid by an authoritarian government like Russia or China to spread cynicism so people will give up trying to get at the truth and make the world better.
> Lots gets published negative about those groups.
Lots? And you name one book that was marginalized more than 20 years ago.
> Lots of people are at least somewhat willing to be persuaded by arguments.
No they are not. Especially on matters like "history/propaganda/etc" that are INTERPRETATION rather than factual.
> I am wondering why you are so sure that it is impossible for human beings to look at history objectively.
Because it is propaganda. Because there is no "objectivity" in history/interpretation/etc.
Try this. Was the civil war about freeing the slaves or states' rights? Was the vietnam war about stopping communism ( vietnam war ) or neo-colonialism ( war of american aggression )? Was the holocaust about the jews? If so, why were most people killed in the holocaust non-jews/gentiles? If most of the people who died were non-jews, why has modern history/culture associated it with jews?
You think you know the answer and you think you are objective/right/etc because your answers fit your agenda/worldview/propaganda. History has always been about propaganda ( emperors/kings/etc would hire writers to write "histories" extolling their virtue and the virtue of their families/etc ). Now, rather than being propaganda for the king/monarchs/etc, history is the official propaganda of the state/nation.
Now, I'm not saying history/propaganda is unnecessary. I think it is needed to maintain the state/nation/society. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking history is the truth. It is not. Not here, not in China, not in Russia, not anywhere.
> One is that you just have a cynical personality.
Or I'm educated and intelligent and understand what history actually is. You are making the same ad hominem attacks religious or cult members make when they are confronted with someone who doesn't "believe". You can lash out at me and call me cynical, but the real cynic is you.
Anyways, I can see that there is no reasoning with you ( not that I'm surprised ) so this will be my last reply to you as you've resorted to ad hominems. I won't read your replies if you write them so please don't bother. Good day.
Agreed. But as long as you understand that history is ultimately propaganda. There isn't an objective truth buttressing it. Just arbitrary biased interpretation.
> The point of history is not agreed upon lies.
It's an agreed upon "interpretation" by a small group of people who get a larger group of people to accept it. Different nations have different histories of the same event. The vietnamese history of the vietnam war is markedly different than the US history of the vietnam war. Same event, different "interpretation/propaganda".
> That's an unethical concession.
It's an honest observation. National histories are biased propaganda. To believe otherwise is to delude oneself. Perhaps some take the propaganda/history to extreme degrees, but nevertheless, all history is propaganda.
> The point of history is to tell what happened.
No. That would be just a list of events. History is INTERPRETATION. Saying that the Civil War began in 1861 is just a fact. Interpreting that as a war over slavery or a war to save the union or the war for state rights or whatever is HISTORY/PROPAGANDA.
> Propagandized history is immoral.
Then all history should be banned and replaced with a list of events.
Think of it this way, history of the US from a white man's perspective is far different than history of the US from a native american's perspective. History of the holocaust would be much different had the germans won ww2 than what it is today. Same event, different history/interpretation.
It's quite amazing that I'm getting downvoted for stating that history is biased and all history is propaganda. But then again, most people are brainwashed. Ultimately, we may laugh at the north koreans or the chinese or the russians or whomever, but we are really deep down, no different.