The corruption of history

[RestlessSoul]

No human can ever be totally neutral, but historians can strive for unbiased objectivity, just as the case in any other academic discipline. They still have peer review.

The principle of objective analysis requires the researcher to recognise and allow for bias, including and perhaps especially his own.

Peer review is itself subject to the collective bias of the prevailing orthodoxy. Which is why just about every field of academic enquiry proceeds “one funeral at a time”.

 

[Augustus]

Therefore?

Scholars are human and peer review is not perfect, but that does not warrant allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Therefore we accept it is never neutral and always, to some degree, reflects the ideology, biases, attitudes or preferences of the reviewer.

Some reviewers are decent and others are petty and think everyone should agree with their personal preferences.

Academic disputes can be very pedantic and vindictive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... every field of academic enquiry proceeds “one funeral at a time”.

^ Planck's Principle (more or less)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Therefore we accept it is never neutral and always, to some degree, reflects the ideology, biases, attitudes or preferences of the reviewer.

Yes.

 

[Heyo]

Our history is several things.

We have scientific theories, derived from empiricism and induction, about the history of the universe, the sun, and our earth.

We have histories based on the evidence from the fossil record of evolution, including the evolution of H sap sap,

We have human histories based on the materials of archaeology ─ what we find from digging, and what we can find from ancient documents.

And we have human histories based on modern materials ─ letters, books, learned publications, newspapers, radio, TV and the net.

Histories are difficult to get exactly right because their materials are of variable reliability.The registry office is highly accurate (I don't say perfect) and the Murdoch press is willfully tendentious and distorting, for instance.

So we need our historians, whether from science, evolution, ancient materials, the age of writing, and the age of computing, to be intelligent, diligent and in particular honest and neutral.

You're mixing colloquial history with academic here. The field of history is usually defined as the study of recorded (mostly in writing but also through other media) events in the past. Which makes it a social science as hearsay is not exactly hard data. We have to take into account that not only the historian but also the writer of the document may have had some bias.
Historians (and sadly also archaeologists) have (had) a bias against women warriors, so that we can expect some misinterpretations in that regard.

 

[Bthoth]

Not sure that’s necessarily true any more (if it ever was).

The “losers” can write their own versions of history too, and nowadays it’s easy to spread many competing narratives.

Sure, now a days it is getting better. For example: Israel is imposing apartheid and 20 yrs ago, very few would even write that fact. Now recording the atrocities is possible and the one sided reporting is no longer the rule.

 

[Estro Felino]

Therefore we accept it is never neutral and always, to some degree, reflects the ideology, biases, attitudes or preferences of the reviewer.

Some reviewers are decent and others are petty and think everyone should agree with their personal preferences.

Academic disputes can be very pedantic and vindictive.

Freud said there is an unconscious mechanism of self-defense that tends to deny the evidence.
The evidence is provided but is like invisible in the eyes of the denier.
This mechanism is called Verneinung. Known as Freudian denial.

So it has nothing to do with pettiness or pedancy. It's a mechanism of self-defense, because truth would blind them as it blinded Oedipus.

 

[Stevicus]

Striving for objectivity is very different to being objective though.

Peer review often just reflects the biases of the reviewer (as an aside, one of my friends had to get a restraining order against someone who did peer review of one of his papers as they started to stalk him online to attack him over their differing views).

If you read academic book reviews you will be familiar with the bias and pettiness they frequently entail.

Of course, but that's what makes it all the more interesting. It's not that one person just gets to decide what history is - or even that "history is written by the victors." I don't even think that's the issue.

It's not what historians do at the academic level, but more an issue when it comes to textbook publishers having to toe the line of bodies like the Texas School Book Commission or other such agencies which don't want any "commie history" to be taught to their children. Then there's popular history of the kind considered suitable for movies, TV, and historical fiction.

“It may grieve the judicious that the great public learns much of its history from works of entertainment. But such is the case.” - Herman Wouk

Then there are also those who have an apparent political motive in the twisting or retelling of history. So, at the very least, we can differentiate between those who at least put in an honest effort to strive for objectivity, as opposed to those who might have a different agenda.

 

[Stevicus]

The principle of objective analysis requires the researcher to recognise and allow for bias, including and perhaps especially his own.

Peer review is itself subject to the collective bias of the prevailing orthodoxy. Which is why just about every field of academic enquiry proceeds “one funeral at a time”.

Nothing is ever perfect, but as long as people put an honest effort in reviewing and evaluating whatever evidence and arguments are put forth, then at least that can lead to some progress. It seems to change with generations. The old professors might be set in their ways and think "this is how it is," while the new generation comes up and tells them they're all wet.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes. History is rewritten by winners.
For instance, the Americans who won WW2 rewrote history by saying that Mussolini was a rightist dictator, whereas he just was a socialist who implemented the most modern welfare policies in the world, at that time. Who made a pact with rightists, that's true.
But he had the power to change economy.
Being an inspiration for Juan Peròn, who created the partido justicialista (that is, based upon social justice) and others.

Why did they do that? Because the Freemason FDR was a Democrat, so he needed to demonize the enemy by saying he was a rightist.

I'm not sure that it's all written by Americans, though. Although, as I noted in an earlier post, I would differentiate between history as it is written by actual historians who work in academia, as opposed to what might be presented to the public by government, media, and in popular entertainment.

American perceptions of WW2 in general tend to cast America in a very positive light, as it's often considered "our finest hour." FDR is considered to be among America's few "Great" Presidents. As far as demonizing the enemy, most Americans would look to the leadership of Germany and Japan as being the primary enemies. The Italians tended to be portrayed differently, especially since they wised up in 1943, threw out Mussolini, and surrendered to the Allies right away.

If Mussolini had been captured by U.S. troops, he probably would have received better treatment than he got from his own people.

But he did choose to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. We didn't declare war on Italy. Italy declared war on us. A basic historical fact like that can't be spun away or covered up or even rewritten. Just like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. That really happened. There's no bias or revisionism in stating the basic facts.

But when it comes to the more detailed aspects, then it can get dicey. It's when the question "why" is asked. Why did the Japanese attack us? Why did Mussolini and Hitler declare war on us? That's when the perceptions of the enemy are formulated.

As to the general point of history being rewritten by the victors, that can also vary depending on which victor we're talking about. The Russian version of WW2 would seem completely different from the American version, yet they were both among the victors. The British version would also seem different from either the Russian or American versions.

In the American version, we're the great heroes in the greatest historical epic of all time.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure that it's all written by Americans, though. Although, as I noted in an earlier post, I would differentiate between history as it is written by actual historians who work in academia, as opposed to what might be presented to the public by government, media, and in popular entertainment.

Historians are inevitably influenced by the government.
Honestly I have never read a high school history book published in the US and used for American public school, but I can imagine there is a certain demonization of certain political systems, before, during and after WW2.

American perceptions of WW2 in general tend to cast America in a very positive light, as it's often considered "our finest hour." FDR is considered to be among America's few "Great" Presidents.

I don't doubt that. I think that WW2 was the most horrific mistake Europeans committed. So, my country too.
But thanks to that mistake, we have reached that degree of awareness that makes us repudiate war.

As far as demonizing the enemy, most Americans would look to the leadership of Germany and Japan as being the primary enemies. The Italians tended to be portrayed differently, especially since they wised up in 1943, threw out Mussolini, and surrendered to the Allies right away.

I know that.
But there are also certain things about Germany that have terrifying implications. I think that Germans have been used as pawns.
By certain élites who favored the rise of Nazism.

If Mussolini had been captured by U.S. troops, he probably would have received better treatment than he got from his own people.

The truth is that Mussolini was in on it. The king had said he would arrest him to punish him for war crimes.
But actually they were both in agreement that the war needed to end as soon as possible, eluding the Germans' control.
That's why even Mussolini's son-in-law voted against him. They were all in on it.
It's not something I presume. I am just quoting Edda Ciano, the Duce's daughter.

But he did choose to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. We didn't declare war on Italy. Italy declared war on us. A basic historical fact like that can't be spun away or covered up or even rewritten. Just like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. That really happened. There's no bias or revisionism in stating the basic facts.

I am not questioning this.
I am just speaking of Italian Fascism, that has nothing to do with the war. Since the war was disliked by many Fascists.

But when it comes to the more detailed aspects, then it can get dicey. It's when the question "why" is asked. Why did the Japanese attack us? Why did Mussolini and Hitler declare war on us? That's when the perceptions of the enemy are formulated.

I can speak of my country only. I am not informed about Japan at all.
Italy was dragged by Germany into the war; this is present in Galeazzo Ciano's diaries, that are a historical document.
It's evidence.
But there are people who have tried to re-write history as if Italy wanted to fight that war.
The problem is that fortunately, many documents survived.
Despite the will to destroy them.

As to the general point of history being rewritten by the victors, that can also vary depending on which victor we're talking about. The Russian version of WW2 would seem completely different from the American version, yet they were both among the victors. The British version would also seem different from either the Russian or American versions.

In the American version, we're the great heroes in the greatest historical epic of all time.

Exactly...but the Russians have a point. It's them who entered Berlin and made Germany capitulate.


PS: this movie was based on Edda's testimony. Watch 2:24:45

 

[justaguy313]

If you want to peddle conspiracy theories, take responsibility for defending them.

Carrol Quigley is not a conspiracy theorist. That's apparent from the links I attached if you read his biography

Bye

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Carrol Quigley is not a conspiracy theorist.

Then your

"Is it genuine or is it ran by puppeters behind the scene to establish their agenda?"​

does him a disservice ...

 

[blü 2]

You're mixing colloquial history with academic here.

Yes, indeed. I was reflecting on the broad concept of "history" in the light of the OP's question.

The field of history is usually defined as the study of recorded (mostly in writing but also through other media) events in the past. Which makes it a social science as hearsay is not exactly hard data. We have to take into account that not only the historian but also the writer f the document may have had some bias.
Historians (and sadly also archaeologists) have (had) a bias against women warriors, so that we can expect some misinterpretations in that regard.

The versions that religions render of their own histories are too usually part of the problem. Yes, there's fine historical and archaeological work done by Christian and Jewish scholars ─ I have no information about Muslim historical scholarship but I dare say there are equivalents ─ but they're rarely publicized unless they seem to support the conventional (usually magical) view.

 

[Quintessence]

Nothing is ever perfect, but as long as people put an honest effort in reviewing and evaluating whatever evidence and arguments are put forth, then at least that can lead to some progress. It seems to change with generations. The old professors might be set in their ways and think "this is how it is," while the new generation comes up and tells them they're all wet.

Indeed, academia is in a constant stage of flux and revision. That's not to say the basics and fundaments are often disputed, but in my experience professors all but expect their graduate students to simultaneously build upon their work and tear it down utterly. I remember writing a paper in graduate school where I basically tore apart the foundations of my own research thesis?

Yeah. Yeah, I bummed myself out about that for a solid week.

 

[Stevicus]

Historians are inevitably influenced by the government.
Honestly I have never read a high school history book published in the US and used for American public school, but I can imagine there is a certain demonization of certain political systems, before, during and after WW2.

Some historians are influenced by government, although sometimes government pressure can have the opposite effect on people.

Yes, in my experience, I have seen where American history can be used to demonize certain political systems. When it comes to WW2, in some ways, we even demonize our own political system as it was prior to the war, where many refer to it pejoratively as "isolationist." The British and French also get criticized due to their lack of preparedness and for what many regard as "appeasement" of Nazi Germany.

Of course, the fascist and Nazi systems were demonized (and rightly so), although as I recall, there was very little mention or emphasis on nationalism itself as being the root cause of those ideologies. I think this was because that, to criticize nationalism could have easily led to criticism of American nationalistic underpinnings and our heavy patriotic bent which dominated American thought and has remained prevalent in the political culture to this day.

Frankly, that's the primary reason why there are worries about the possibility of fascism arising in America or in Europe - because nobody in any position of power or authority ever really had the guts to call nationalism out and condemn it for what it is - and what it has turned into.

I don't doubt that. I think that WW2 was the most horrific mistake Europeans committed. So, my country too.
But thanks to that mistake, we have reached that degree of awareness that makes us repudiate war.

Well, that's good. The causes of WW2 were rooted in WW1, which was caused mainly by nationalism. The irony is that all of the powers that started the war with high hopes for glory for their nation all ended up being mostly devasted, exhausted, bankrupt - with even the winners having a pyrrhic victory. It marked the beginning of the end of the British and French empires. The only real winner was the U.S., which entered late, made the fewest sacrifices, and was virtually untouched throughout the conflict.

WW2 was caused by nationalism on steroids (aka "Fascism"). That doesn't mean the Allies were totally off the hook, since their own obsessive nationalism was what led them to want to punish Germany for WW1, which made the Germans so angry and resentful that they ran into Hitler's arms, spoiling for a rematch. It also didn't help that they mismanaged their economies so badly as to cause the Great Depression, so that's another lesson they should have learned.

I know that.
But there are also certain things about Germany that have terrifying implications. I think that Germans have been used as pawns.
By certain élites who favored the rise of Nazism.

Maybe. In hindsight, it seems to me that the rise of Nazism could have been easily predicted in the years previous to their rise to power. Obviously, a lot of people in Germany, including some of their elites, favored the rise of Nazism in that country - otherwise it never would have arose at all.

I can see where many people, even some in the West, might have favored the rise of a staunchly anti-Soviet regime in Germany - especially if there was a possibility of a pro-Soviet regime coming to power in that country. Were the Germans used as pawns? I suppose there's a tendency of national governments and leaders (particularly someone like Hitler) to view their own people as "pawns" to play their games. Of course, if you're going to be a pawn, it's still better to be a pawn on the winning side rather than the losing side.

The truth is that Mussolini was in on it. The king had said he would arrest him to punish him for war crimes.
But actually they were both in agreement that the war needed to end as soon as possible, eluding the Germans' control.
That's why even Mussolini's son-in-law voted against him. They were all in on it.
It's not something I presume. I am just quoting Edda Ciano, the Duce's daughter.

Hitler was probably expecting Mussolini to follow the same "hold or die" stance in Italy that he demanded from Von Paulus at Stalingrad. That wasn't going to happen.

I am not questioning this.
I am just speaking of Italian Fascism, that has nothing to do with the war. Since the war was disliked by many Fascists.

Well, they still joined up with Germany. I think most people view the German Nazis as being the worst offenders and the worst aggressors in the war. But Mussolini had been aggressive in Albania, Ethiopia, and Greece, as well as violent oppression in Libya. He was certainly no innocent. He may not have been as bad as Hitler, but then, that's not really saying much. And he still joined up with Hitler - and that was pretty bad.

I can speak of my country only. I am not informed about Japan at all.
Italy was dragged by Germany into the war; this is present in Galeazzo Ciano's diaries, that are a historical document.
It's evidence.
But there are people who have tried to re-write history as if Italy wanted to fight that war.
The problem is that fortunately, many documents survived.
Despite the will to destroy them.

It's quite possible that they may have been dragged into it, but they also could have made other choices. Ultimately, they chose to gamble, and they lost. That's not demonizing them. Every country, government, political faction - they all make their own gambits and hope for the best. It's just an endless game of power politics where all factions are vying for position.

It's been the same for America, although we gambled and won big - and we kept on winning for a while, though we probably should have quit when we were ahead, back in 1945. That's where our leaders blew it, since they chose to stay at the table and keep gambling, thinking they could win even more.

Exactly...but the Russians have a point. It's them who entered Berlin and made Germany capitulate.

Well, yes, to a large extent, they did bear the brunt of the ground fighting. For the Russians, it was the Great Patriotic War. I've visited the mass graves in Leningrad and the monuments at Stalingrad. It was very moving and left quite an impression on me. America didn't really have to face that level of devastation in the war. Having a two-ocean buffer has spared us from much of the turmoil of the world.

PS: this movie was based on Edda's testimony. Watch 2:24:45

Interesting video. It seems that they were still loyal to the King, who was able to keep Mussolini in check. In Germany, there was no more Kaisar, so there was nothing to keep Hitler in check.

 

[justaguy313]

I'm adding another book from the 7th covenant publishing dealing with this topic for those interested.

The Forgotten truth by Caroline Hören

 

[Augustus]

I'm adding another book from the 7th covenant publishing dealing with this topic for those interested.

The Forgotten truth by Caroline Hören

A historically illiterate Ahmadi proselytisation text?

Surely you can do better than that for actual history? (or perhaps not)

 

[Heyo]

Kudos, someone who who listened in history class. Just one little detail:

Well, that's good. The causes of WW2 were rooted in WW1, which was caused mainly by nationalism.

While nationalism was highly practised around that time, the real reason for WWI (and especially the size it had) was internationalism. Rarely before had there been alliances with more than two or three players. And when there were, like against Napoleon, they formed during the war. Prior to WWI there were two blocks facing each other and only because of that face-off could an incident in Serbia involving an Austrian national lead to Germany triggering the war.

 

[Secret Chief]

History is a subjective narrative constructed around past events that may or may not have actually happened.

It often overlaps with myth, generally serves an agenda and is significantly the product of ideology and cultural contingencies.

This doesn’t mean it is “corrupted” though (particularly by some nefarious puppet masters), as it could never be anything other than this.

This. So I didn't vote.