The History of History
It was quoted once that history is defined by the victor. That is somewhat true...actually its all true. In reality, history, like any other realm of knowledge, is passed from teacher to student. So in reality, history is controlled by those you pay attention to. In reality on a macro scale that means those who have the attention of the masses. And of course in reality, That does NOT have to be history teachers. In fact (in reality) in modern day America it typically isn't. In reality, history is learned from entertainment personalities as much as teachers. Because in reality those are the people who have the attention of the masses...in reality...really. But seriously...
Think about that for a moment. Consider that every person on the planet has values and needs. How they wish the world to be shaped falls in line with those values and needs. Their wishes will affect their actions without some sort of altruistic appreciation of their trade in information. But even then, there is no perfect absence of agenda, merely different degrees of attempts to wash it with open-mindedness or relativism.
History is Red Wine on a White carpet. There's just no removing the agenda.
No matter how much you clean it up, wash it, or water it down.
But knowing that all humans enter into conversation and all action with purpose and thereby an agenda, we see that all history is recorded at the desire of the recorder of history. For example, throughout western culture it could be taught that Christopher Columbus was a bold discoverer that benefited the world with knowledge and access to resources, or an oppressive destroyer of cultures. In all reality, he could be seen as both. But depending on one's agenda, they could teach one side more than the other, or not at all.
At least he still helped Europe discovered a round earth...if you ignore
lots of other historical documents preceding him by centuries...HISTORY!
Americans do not realize it, but they themselves are the subject of such agendas in history also. As a nation America can be seen the most charitable, sacrificing, and compassionate group of people on the planet for all their foreign aid, giving, and foreign assistance, charitable and military. But it can also be an oppressive busybody that has marginalized people, takes advantage of slave and cheap foreign labor, and forces other countries into doing its will. A case can certainly be made for both, but which is a better or more accurate definition? My point is that it depends on who's telling the history and quite often the same characteristics can be attributed to any nation on earth. But since for the teller history is all about agenda, you will likely hear only one or the other.
During World War 2, American history was a very different course
depending on whether it was studied in New York or Tokyo.
Even though history can be manipulated by the recorder of history, it doesn't stand that history recorded accurately means history taught or even understood accurately. Certainly history is interpreted through the eyes of the beholder and the beholder defines history for not only themselves but also the person they pass the information to. As shown above, historical events are certainly definitive but their record or interpretation is most certainly not and all it takes is one person to disrupt the perfect information chain to break down the original conception. In order to circumvent this and determine if information is reliable we often refer to the source record and skip the modern tellers of history altogether. But in the end, nothing is safe from error.
Having it does not mean knowing how to handle it properly.
An example of the highest order
A great example is the most scrutinized book on the planet, the Bible. Historical examples such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, offer a past recording we can use to test the passing on and interpretation of information. They literally even showed that more than 2000 years of recopying of text can be very exact and such things give us hope we are getting the original story. However, nothing can control our modern perception. Language changes constantly and knowledge of languages becomes the key element in verifying concepts accurately.
For example, though the Dead Sea Scrolls show the Bible may be interpreted nearly exact to its most ancient record existing, one can take four different versions interpreting the same passage and pull a different meaning depending on your understanding of a single word. I take 1 Corinthians 1:23.
"All things are Lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify me not." King James Version
"Everything is permissable - but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissable, but not everything is constructive" New International Version
"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful but not all things edify." New American Standard Version
"All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial. All things are lawful, but not everything builds up." New Revised Standard Version.
Now I'm about to get hermeneutical so skip a couple paragraphs if language study bores you. The original word for 'expedient' (in the KJV) is sumphero in ancient greek. This word is a combination of the words soon (in unison, or together) and phero (to bear or carry), in all its angles its meaning is to come together for the good or profit of those involved. In this regard one can see how each word used captures the text's real meaning. However, using the words distinctly by themselves can warp the meaning. Expedient often denotes efficiency of time rather than quality and that can warp the definition. Likewise the word profitable, modernly pertains to money and even business, which can have all new connotations.
The other word I highlighted was "edify". This is oikodomeo in the greek and its a construction term used for a house builder. This term figuratively was used to mean confirm, build, or embolden. Although the 3 terms used between these versions captures the original meaning well, each one can be construed differently than the other just like before. Also of note is the wide difference one can take from the words "permissable" and "lawful". Depending on context and experience, the two can have radically different meanings. In this way someone can garner entirely different concepts depending on what language is used and when retelling history, this is a constant struggle that few take time to actually explore as important.
Messed that up pretty good, huh?
Hold on, there's more
Another common way history gets changed is by our own perceptions about elements that have nothing to do with language, but preconceived notions. All information in your mind is stored from your modern experiences and those experiences will inevitably vary from that of history leading to inevitably different concepts than the recorder of history. This obviously results in misinterpretation. As an example of how modern perceptions affect our interpretation of history, I have inserted a clip from Futurama, set in 3000AD, below.
Because our education system has largely mandated the philosophy and theology of evolution, empiricism, and humanism, it has accepted certain concepts as being "outdated" such as spirit, religion, God, miracles, and such, It has also determined that modern humans are increasingly superior to ancient humans. The result is automatically interpreting our most distant ancestors through lenses of these "inferior" concepts, when in reality, it would be just as legitimate to assume the complete opposite. All you have to do is swap your theory of origin and Ultimate Reality and all of a sudden everything changes.
Context is most of human communication and unfortunately there just isn't a way to verify context. How do people living thousands of years later know the context of a historical item or record? The answer is they simply don't because they weren't there.
A. Idol
B. Charm
C. Doll
D. Story Prop
Technology to the Rescue?
But you might say that modern technology has worked to eliminate this issue because it puts us closer and closer to the situation, creating context. Although that is partially true, its progress can be measured literally only by factions in getting us to the truth. To test that, how many stories have you seen lately where multiple pictures or even videos were demanded to understand what really happened? A picture or video from one angle or at one point in time says something entirely different than another. In a past article I discussed at length the power of context. Below is two pictures of the same event taken at the exact same time. But the angle of the photo changes your perception incredibly. Depending on what news outlet was covering the event, they used only one image, but never both. You be the judge on what can be gathered from each picture and why context can be distorted even with technology.
The first photo looks like the protesters are confrontational and the fire arms and lining up together make them seem dangerous and aggressive. The frontal picture shows their happy smiles and their grouping together for a group photo removing the aggressive context. Both photos are of the same event and its of actual people as they were in real time. But they tell an entirely different story apart from one another. Video does not escape this either as mere seconds removed from a clip can eliminate valuable context as well as the angle and focus of the video.
What if I or someone else I know is really there?
Perhaps the strongest enforcer of this is how eyewitnesses of the exact same account can tell a completely different story, even in ways that is hard to reconcile, due to their position and preconceived understanding on the situation beforehand. This happens constantly in criminal trials with multiple witnesses where it is a task to go through and make sense of seemingly conflicting statements about the exact same event. In the end, even the most direct source can misinterpret history. To showcase this point for me, here is a scene from Joe Pesci's "My Cousin Vinny".
We get it. But can't we piece it together?
The last thing limiting history is the limit of human beings themselves. A page of words or a picture can only give you so much information. The scope of knowledge even understandable to a human is so minuscule in comparison to all the sense-data that could be retrieved, one has to realize that more than 99% of the story just isn't told. Historical figures that we even have a lot of direct data on, such as Ann Frank, still have not been able to tell us the majority of their story. For all the direct writing of Ann Frank we have, she had 10000 times more thoughts every day than what went into her diary. How much do you hear people even say, "we know so little about Ann Frank." And she left behind a whole Diary! How much less the other hundreds of millions of people experiencing WW2 Europe at the time?
In the end what we receive is a sliver of the whole picture and we have no way of knowing how much of that is accurate in comparison to the whole. In that regard, history is not working with algebraic equations that look like this:
X + 25 = X-Y
It's more like this (only 20 times longer):
(X/Y + Z) * A/(B-D)*(A/E+(C+G+H/N))=Y*2/P+25*(R3-T3))
There are literally so many variables when attempting to conclude actual events the vast majority of history is created from our assumptions, which I touched on above. I suppose that means the history of history is that its literally closer to fiction than non-fiction. I know that's not a comforting thought, but its the truth.
All these things together means that on a very macro level, history is just never going to be exactly right. Yet, it's so vital to understand history in order to understand humanity that there is simply no giving up. In much the same way, its a struggle even to live as you have to eat and drink constantly to replenish vital nutrients to your body. But does that mean the greater value is in not trying?
The history of history is complex because human perception is complex. In a way, that is perfectly fine. People have the opportunity to exponentially increase their understanding just by talking with another human being. Each person's perspective is unique, no matter what background they come from and helps shape the mural of the human experience. History itself, is merely the the telling of stories, stories we take for granted in good faith on the will of those telling it. Since humans are designed to live by faith anyway, it really is yet another angle on the existential quest of human knowledge, pointing back to a revelatory hole in understanding Ultimate Reality. The history if history, it seems, is the art of accepting the uncertainty of certainty.
Yes your history is as certain as your job not being replaced by a robot. Boom! Mosquito Cannon strikes again.
Comments
Post a Comment