Will History Continually Be Rewritten?

[Rick2542]

I'm a dinosaur, I come from another era, and I'm good with that. But what I notice anymore is that facts are cherry picked to present an agenda. There were women scientists, black scholars, but by and large the last 500 years at least has basically been white male dominated. There's nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, the future may well not belong to wasps. But on my part I prefer to keep the story straight. Good or bad, it is what it was.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Great point, Rick. DoI, Constitution, almost 600 thousand white military deaths in the Civil War, 13th and 14th and 15th and 19th and 26th Amendments, Brown vs School Board, Civil Rights and Voting acts: all primarily white empowerment for others.

Keep the balance in mind as we go forward in the future.

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm a dinosaur, I come from another era, and I'm good with that. But what I notice anymore is that facts are cherry picked to present an agenda. There were women scientists, black scholars, but by and large the last 500 years at least has basically been white male dominated. There's nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, the future may well not belong to wasps. But on my part I prefer to keep the story straight. Good or bad, it is what it was.

I wish I could share your confidence that White scholars have accurately recorded history. The
tendency for Eurocentric historians to usurp the history of North Africa and the middle east and claim it as their own throws suspicion on every thing they write.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The access to primary documents on the internet has tremendously improved history writing.

The LDS Church, as an example, has offered up its massive history library records online for free, since the leadership realizes it can no longer control the historical narrative. So, recognizing it has lost that battle, has conceded some ground while allowing its professoriate to ignore "history" and work on the doctrinal and cultural issues that they so love.

The last 24 months has been a period pf a tremendous lessening in the cultural war between rival historians, i have been told.

 

[longknife]

Having done a whole lot of reading on the exploration and population of Mexico - specifically the two Californias - I've come to the opinion that history is written to favor whoever is writing it.

Ask a California Indian their view of California history and they will give you an entirely different view than those in many text books.

 

[boedicca]

I'm a dinosaur, I come from another era, and I'm good with that. But what I notice anymore is that facts are cherry picked to present an agenda. There were women scientists, black scholars, but by and large the last 500 years at least has basically been white male dominated. There's nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, the future may well not belong to wasps. But on my part I prefer to keep the story straight. Good or bad, it is what it was.

Facts have always been cherry picked to present history in the way most favorable to the controlling hegemony.

IOW, history is written by the victor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is often so.

 

[elektra]

Stereotypes, one can not stereotype written histories, many are very good.

 

[elektra]

Having done a whole lot of reading on the exploration and population of Mexico - specifically the two Californias - I've come to the opinion that history is written to favor whoever is writing it.

Ask a California Indian their view of California history and they will give you an entirely different view than those in many text books.

Any examples?

 

[longknife]

Having done a whole lot of reading on the exploration and population of Mexico - specifically the two Californias - I've come to the opinion that history is written to favor whoever is writing it.

Ask a California Indian their view of California history and they will give you an entirely different view than those in many text books.

Any examples?

The Kumeyaay tribe in San Diego fought against the Spaniards when they first came to the area. Even then, hundreds came to the mission seeking a regular source of food and protection from the elements. They were never in chains and many were allowed to leave to attend special events and rites. The friars treated them as if they were their own children, punishing themselves far worse than any native/Gentile miscreant.

However, according to many California historians, the friars treated the tens of thousands of natives that came to the missions as slaves. As there were never more than 150 soldiers split between 4 presidios and 21 missions, how could they possibly "enslave" thousands of natives?

 

[JQPublic1]

Having done a whole lot of reading on the exploration and population of Mexico - specifically the two Californias - I've come to the opinion that history is written to favor whoever is writing it.


Ask a California Indian their view of California history and they will give you an entirely different view than those in many text books.

Any examples?

The Kumeyaay tribe in San Diego fought against the Spaniards when they first came to the area. Even then, hundreds came to the mission seeking a regular source of food and protection from the elements. They were never in chains and many were allowed to leave to attend special events and rites. The friars treated them as if they were their own children, punishing themselves far worse than any native/Gentile miscreant.

However, according to many California historians, the friars treated the tens of thousands of natives that came to the missions as slaves. As there were never more than 150 soldiers split between 4 presidios and 21 missions, how could they possibly "enslave" thousands of natives?

You are still telling us the Spanish version of what happened. I would like to know if the Indians agree with your narrative, especially the 1st paragraph.

 

[longknife]

You are still telling us the Spanish version of what happened. I would like to know if the Indians agree with your narrative, especially the 1st paragraph.

Of course they will! I posted THEIR version, not the Spanish.

And, to put this all into perspective, the man most responsible for the history books on California and many other states, Hubert Howe Brancroft, was not a college graduate nor a historian. He was a mid-West protestant with clear anti-Catholic bias and did nothing but condense and edit documents gathered by a team of non-historians. His tomes are filled with historical errors and clearly show a biased and bigoted view of the "savage, child-like Indians" and the Papist Friars.

 

[regent]

You are still telling us the Spanish version of what happened. I would like to know if the Indians agree with your narrative, especially the 1st paragraph.

Of course they will! I posted THEIR version, not the Spanish.

And, to put this all into perspective, the man most responsible for the history books on California and many other states, Hubert Howe Brancroft, was not a college graduate nor a historian. He was a mid-West protestant with clear anti-Catholic bias and did nothing but condense and edit documents gathered by a team of non-historians. His tomes are filled with historical errors and clearly show a biased and bigoted view of the "savage, child-like Indians" and the Papist Friars.

Professional historians didn't come on the American scene until the late 1800's. Until then people just wrote history some good, some bad and some even accurate. Today, hopefully the professional historians set some rules that historians, professional and otherwise, follow.

 

[regent]

You are still telling us the Spanish version of what happened. I would like to know if the Indians agree with your narrative, especially the 1st paragraph.

Of course they will! I posted THEIR version, not the Spanish.

And, to put this all into perspective, the man most responsible for the history books on California and many other states, Hubert Howe Brancroft, was not a college graduate nor a historian. He was a mid-West protestant with clear anti-Catholic bias and did nothing but condense and edit documents gathered by a team of non-historians. His tomes are filled with historical errors and clearly show a biased and bigoted view of the "savage, child-like Indians" and the Papist Friars.

Professional historians didn't come on the American scene until the late 1800's. Until then people just wrote history some good, some bad and some even accurate. Today, hopefully the professional historians set some rules that historians, professional and otherwise, can follow.

 

[JQPublic1]

You are still telling us the Spanish version of what happened. I would like to know if the Indians agree with your narrative, especially the 1st paragraph.

Of course they will! I posted THEIR version, not the Spanish.

And, to put this all into perspective, the man most responsible for the history books on California and many other states, Hubert Howe Brancroft, was not a college graduate nor a historian. He was a mid-West protestant with clear anti-Catholic bias and did nothing but condense and edit documents gathered by a team of non-historians. His tomes are filled with historical errors and clearly show a biased and bigoted view of the "savage, child-like Indians" and the Papist Friars.

Professional historians didn't come on the American scene until the late 1800's. Until then people just wrote history some good, some bad and some even accurate. Today, hopefully the professional historians set some rules that historians, professional and otherwise, can follow.

And just who is a professional historian? People who get paid for it.? I am not sure I agree that a person writing for profit or ideology would opt for precision in their history writing, those foibles just gives them an incentive to satisfy the target audience.

 

[regent]

You are still telling us the Spanish version of what happened. I would like to know if the Indians agree with your narrative, especially the 1st paragraph.

Of course they will! I posted THEIR version, not the Spanish.

And, to put this all into perspective, the man most responsible for the history books on California and many other states, Hubert Howe Brancroft, was not a college graduate nor a historian. He was a mid-West protestant with clear anti-Catholic bias and did nothing but condense and edit documents gathered by a team of non-historians. His tomes are filled with historical errors and clearly show a biased and bigoted view of the "savage, child-like Indians" and the Papist Friars.

Professional historians didn't come on the American scene until the late 1800's. Until then people just wrote history some good, some bad and some even accurate. Today, hopefully the professional historians set some rules that historians, professional and otherwise, can follow.

And just who is a professional historian? People who get paid for it.? I am not sure I agree that a person writing for profit or ideology would opt for precision in their history writing, those foibles just gives them an incentive to satisfy the target audience.

Just as doctors or pharmacists have to take the required courses, so must professional historians, and just as not having the required courses and training does not prevent people from suggesting medication or treating illness so it does not prevent people from writing history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ha! Now we have confirmation history arts contributors. That's a hoot.