History written by wieners

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, just have to get this off my chest.

I hate the phrase "history is written by the winners," especially when I hear it in a lecture by a re-constructionist historian trying to re-imagine the significance of women, minorities, homosexuals and other over-looked or oppressed groups in history. They say it like it's some kind of lament, "Unfortunately, history is written by the winners... blah blah blah"

I just want to walk up to them and say, "Congrats, you're a winner! ..... Have a cookie."

I can't believe how little thought is put into that statement, especially by a person who considers themselves to be representing a "loser" and writing a "history" about that group.

No thinking allowed!

Jeez.

 

[Buttercup]

We could always change it to: History is written by the whiners or winos

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, they are thinking "History used to be written by the winners... I'm not a winner because I am in group X, and I am still writing a history... the law no longer applies to me..."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We could always change it to: History is written by the whiners or winos

Yes!

But it begs the question - what is history? There are plenty of historical tidbits that offer insights into women and homosexuals, etc, that are not purely abstract creations - like monuments, letters, and such... where do you think that they get the data to write "their" histories?

Jeez

 

[Buttercup]

Yes!

But it begs the question - what is history? There are plenty of historical tidbits that offer insights into women and homosexuals, etc, that are not purely abstract creations - like monuments, letters, and such... where do you think that they get the data to write "their" histories?

Jeez

The winos could get it from putting their ear to the rim of their BoonesFarm and listening real good.

 

[Ozzie]

OK, just have to get this off my chest.

I hate the phrase "history is written by the winners," especially when I hear it in a lecture by a re-constructionist historian trying to re-imagine the significance of women, minorities, homosexuals and other over-looked or oppressed groups in history. They say it like it's some kind of lament, "Unfortunately, history is written by the winners... blah blah blah"

I just want to walk up to them and say, "Congrats, you're a winner! ..... Have a cookie."

I can't believe how little thought is put into that statement, especially by a person who considers themselves to be representing a "loser" and writing a "history" about that group.

No thinking allowed!

Jeez.

History is written by the fat elite. That's why they give winners a cookie every time they "f88K" them. Its a bit like looking in the mirror.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

History is written by the fat elite.... Its a bit like looking in the mirror.

That's why it's hilarious to hear a historian say it. :biglaugh:

My frustration is that they are too obtuse to admit that they have won.

 

[whereismynotecard]

The title of the thread caused be to believe this was going to be the history written by weenah dogs...

 

[Buttercup]

The title of the thread caused be to believe this was going to be the history written by weenah dogs...

Dang. That would be good wouldn't it?

 

[Elessar]

The title of the thread caused be to believe this was going to be the history written by weenah dogs...

1791-1815: Not enough petting.
1815-1853: Better petting.
1853-1857: Failure to receive proper petting in U.K., France
1857-1861: Better petting.
1861-1865: Insufficient petting in United States.
1865-1871: Sufficient petting.
1871-1873: Insufficient petting in Germany, France.
1873-1914: Somewhat sufficient petting.
1914-1919: Insufficient petting.
1919-1929: Sufficient petting
1929: Unknown reason for shortage of humans for petting purposes.
1929-1939: Insufficient petting.
1939-1946: Seriously insufficient petting.
1946-1950: Somewhat better petting.
1950-1991: Sufficient petting
1991-2001: Better petting.
2001-present: Excellent petting.

 

[Willamena]

The title of the thread caused be to believe this was going to be the history written by weenah dogs...

I suspect they'd stretch the truth.

 

[whereismynotecard]

1791-1815: Not enough petting.
1815-1853: Better petting.
1853-1857: Failure to receive proper petting in U.K., France
1857-1861: Better petting.
1861-1865: Insufficient petting in United States.
1865-1871: Sufficient petting.
1871-1873: Insufficient petting in Germany, France.
1873-1914: Somewhat sufficient petting.
1914-1919: Insufficient petting.
1919-1929: Sufficient petting
1929: Unknown reason for shortage of humans for petting purposes.
1929-1939: Insufficient petting.
1939-1946: Seriously insufficient petting.
1946-1950: Somewhat better petting.
1950-1991: Sufficient petting
1991-2001: Better petting.
2001-present: Excellent petting.

There is no mention of humping and eating, which are Baggins's two favourite things. He loves the most to hump the schnauzer. He's in love with him.

 

[Elessar]

There is no mention of humping and eating, which are Baggins's two favourite things. He loves the most to hump the schnauzer. He's in love with him.

But that would have ruined the structure of my post!

 

[whereismynotecard]

But that would have ruined the structure of my post!

I suppose your post is "The History of Petting." While there are also histories regarding humping and chicken. Baggins loves cheese, but my sister's boyfriend says cheese isn't good for him...

 

[Elessar]

I suppose your post is "The History of Petting." While there are also histories regarding humping and chicken. Baggins loves cheese, but my sister's boyfriend says cheese isn't good for him...

Yeah, I guess so

Don't mind me, I'm actually a cat person.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

History is written by sheep.

 

[Falvlun]

That's why it's hilarious to hear a historian say it. :biglaugh:

My frustration is that they are too obtuse to admit that they have won.

I see what you are saying, but by simply claiming that "History is written by the winners" doesn't mean that these historians are denying that they are winners. A winner could still be the voice for the losers.

There is no mention of humping and eating, which are Baggins's two favourite things. He loves the most to hump the schnauzer. He's in love with him.

Obviously, poor Baggins is a loser, as the history was not written by him or his ilk.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I see what you are saying, but by simply claiming that "History is written by the winners" doesn't mean that these historians are denying that they are winners. A winner could still be the voice for the losers.

Actually, the only qualification is that the "winner" survives long enough to write something.

As we know, there are plenty of losers writing crap.

 

[rojse]

OK, just have to get this off my chest.

I hate the phrase "history is written by the winners," especially when I hear it in a lecture by a re-constructionist historian trying to re-imagine the significance of women, minorities, homosexuals and other over-looked or oppressed groups in history. They say it like it's some kind of lament, "Unfortunately, history is written by the winners... blah blah blah"

I just want to walk up to them and say, "Congrats, you're a winner! ..... Have a cookie."

I can't believe how little thought is put into that statement, especially by a person who considers themselves to be representing a "loser" and writing a "history" about that group.

No thinking allowed!

Jeez.

How about as males had a dominant position in most of society, they were the ones that had the largest chance to make history. Women and minorities weren't given the same quality education that caucasian males received, were much more sheltered, and were either sheltered or treated as chattels for much of our history. Is it unsurprising, then, that males had a more dominant effect on much of history?

 

[Falvlun]

Actually, the only qualification is that the "winner" survives long enough to write something.

Mm. I'm not too sure about that. I think "winner" status also confers legitimacy. The losing side isn't seen as legitimate as the winning side; so even if the losing side survived and was able to write something, that something may not be accepted by the more powerful winning side.