Revising History

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Lancer
Personaly I consider this a rather cynical attitude.
History is not fluid. History is a fact. What may be uncertain about it is the way we interpret it or what we know about it, but your statement may well be construed to mean that you think it is okay to reinterpret history and that I simply can not support, nor condone.
Too many people are already trying to reconstruct history that I think we can not stand idly by while this happens. Just look at how many self-proclaimed "experts" try to tell the world that the genocides of the Nazi regime did never happen!

This is exactly my point and part of my frustration.

I am more than willing to believe that this is not what you were talking about, but simply proclaiming that more information about history may be a good thing in itself is IMO a most dangerous attitude, at least unless you make a point about the so called "information" being verifyable. (OTOH that may well go for anything we now consider "information", but that's a different can of worms I probably shouldn't be opening).

That being said, let me give you an example: I was born in (Western-) Germany and lived there my whole life. I have seen the "facts" of the German reunification (as reported in the news available to me) and for years I have witnessed the rewriting of history. Statues of Marx and Lenin have been torn down, streets have been re-named, history has been re-writen and erradicated, all in the name of unification and democracy; as people in charge suddenly thought it prudent to forget about the last 40 or 50 years of our history. (I know I may be exagerating quite a bit, but it helps to make my point, does it not?)

In a two or three hundred years from now, when historians excavate the ruins of Berlin or Leipzig or Magdeburg, will they find evidence that part of Germany was once a Russian client state? No, probably not, because someone somewhere has decided it was best to try and eradicate that part of our history from museums and street-names and what have you! And that is only what is going on right now! Who knows what revisions will be made to history in the next couple of decades.

So yeah, history may be fluid, but by gawd you can be sure that the facts don't speak for themselves. History can be remade every time someone who proclaims himself an "expert" decides to do so and can manage to convince others to see things as he wants them to.

My point?
Don't trust what others tell you, be it about the past, the present or the future. Did the English longbowmen win the battle of Agincourt? Heck, who cares?
If this is of the utmost importance to you, look to the present, not the past and if you can't do that, at least make darn sure you have all the facts you can get, before you decide for yourself what really happened. [/B]

An excellent example. As to the longbow, at least two of us on this forum. The longbow and the Swiss pikemen are among the first nails in the coffin of the mounted knight.

[Phantom]

Quite right, I should have said "verifiable new evidence."

Though I would like to ask, if history is, as you seem to indicate, made up of unchangable facts, then why carry on historical/archaeological research?

"Facts" change.

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Phantom
Quite right, I should have said "verifiable new evidence."

Though I would like to ask, if history is, as you seem to indicate, made up of unchangable facts, then why carry on historical/archaeological research?

"Facts" change.

I have to disagree with your last statement. Facts do not change. New Facts may be found or the existing Facts facts may be re-interpreted to confirm a new opinion.

[Phantom]

Facts don't change? Ok, a couple of years ago they found a Royal Tomb in Macedon, one of the bodies found seemed to have damage done to the right eye. Well, everyone was excited as historical fact tells us Philip, Alexander's father, took catapult bolt in the eye...so this, for all intents and purposes, was Philip's skull (Archaeologists are good at jumping to conclusinons). It became a published fact. Just recently the "damage" to the area of the eye was found to be natural, so it is now pretty much fact that it is the skull of Alexander's brother. This would seem to me to be a change of facts.

History isn't written in stone, and until someone can go back and observe the events first hand they won't be. The saying "the victors write the history" is absolutly true.

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Phantom
Facts don't change? Ok, a couple of years ago they found a Royal Tomb in Macedon, one of the bodies found seemed to have damage done to the right eye. Well, everyone was excited as historical fact tells us Philip, Alexander's father, took catapult bolt in the eye...so this, for all intents and purposes, was Philip's skull (Archaeologists are good at jumping to conclusinons). It became a published fact. Just recently the "damage" to the area of the eye was found to be natural, so it is now pretty much fact that it is the skull of Alexander's brother. This would seem to me to be a change of facts.

Maybe I'm watching too much C.S.I. but the facts of this case is the finding of the skull with damage to the right eye. The Interpretation of these facts suggest that it was Philip of Macedon. Re-interpreting the facts suggest it is Alexander's brother. The Facts did not change unless the damage managed to heal itself.

[Phantom]

Well, actually the facts did change. As I stated in the above post the "damage" to the eye wasn't damage at all, but natural bone growth. So, IMO anyway, the facts did change.

[C5]

It depends on how you define history IMHO.
If history is what really happened, then facts don't change, unless you suppose the existence of time travelers.

OTOH, if you consider that history is how we consider the past to have happened, then facts change... but it's more a matter of information and interpretation. On that account, you could consider that a crime change as the inquiry progresses as well.

And for instance, this would mean that at one time, history included giants (until we discovered the giant bones belonged to dinosaurs).

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Phantom
Well, actually the facts did change. As I stated in the above post the "damage" to the eye wasn't damage at all, but natural bone growth. So, IMO anyway, the facts did change.

But the fact was, how to put it, something was unusual about the eye. It was the interpretation of this fact, in the first case, that it was damaged, possibly by a catapult bolt. The fact was then re-interpreted as being natural bone growth.

[Phantom]

"And for instance, this would mean that at one time, history included giants (until we discovered the giant bones belonged to dinosaurs)."

Well, I have heard that some scientists have the theory (from remains found) that a race of "giants" (that is to say larger then average humans) did exist. Hence a connection to the story of Goliath.

One definition of "Fact": anything ALLEGED to be true and used as basis of arguement. So, my facts might be different then yours.

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Phantom
"And for instance, this would mean that at one time, history included giants (until we discovered the giant bones belonged to dinosaurs)."

Well, I have heard that some scientists have the theory (from remains found) that a race of "giants" (that is to say larger then average humans) did exist. Hence a connection to the story of Goliath.

One definition of "Fact": anything ALLEGED to be true and used as basis of arguement. So, my facts might be different then yours.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the primary definition of the term fact. A professor friend of mine has stated that generally accepted concepts are by definition facts. Even if at one time that means the Earth was flat.

I've read the giants theory before. One theory was that it was a race memory of Cro Magnon man. Asimov mentioned it in a book on the bible as well.

[C5]

Well, if the actual definition for fact is something alleged to have happened and not something that really happened, then I stand corrected, and facts can change.
The question then would be, is history a collection or fact or not ? If so, it can change.

Which BTW leads to an interesting and Orwellian conclusion, that if every historian considers a certain event did not happen or happened another way, and modify every proof accordingly, then this fact actually never happened. Doublethink is your friend...
An example of that is a theory I heard recently that Joan of Arc actually was of noble descent, and in no way a peasant, but that the historian Michelet somehow created the myth and everyone took it after him.

I had never heard of the Giants theory. However, I guess a person of our current health would have been considered a Giant at the time where the Goliath legends were created.

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by C5
An example of that is a theory I heard recently that Joan of Arc actually was of noble descent, and in no way a peasant, but that the historian Michelet somehow created the myth and everyone took it after him.

The TV showIn Search Of with Leonard Nimoy looked at this. The theory was that it was very easy for Jeanne d'Arc to recognize the Dauphin as he was her half brother. Needless to say, this is one re-interpretation that won't get acceptance.

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by C5

An example of that is a theory I heard recently that Joan of Arc actually was of noble descent, and in no way a peasant, but that the historian Michelet somehow created the myth and everyone took it after him.

When the legend gets bigger than the facts, print the legend.

[AslanC]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
When the legend gets bigger than the facts, print the legend.

Amen brother

In Quebec there is the story of Dollard Des Ormeaux who went out and stopped a native raiding party (losing his life in theprocess) and saving Ville Marie (Montreal).

What most of the history books taught in high school leave out is that he (and his men) were actually out stealing furs from traps (both French and Native).

History is not fact, history is the interrpretation of the available facts.

Facts can change. Nothing is written in stone. Knowledge changes and with it, facts change. Now you can argue the semantics of it until the cows come home, but you are not argueing the arguement youa re arguing the wording.

Two fun wording issues for you.

1] Nephlim has been translate as "Giant" from the book of Genesis, but actually has no translation at all. It was mistranslated as Giant ages ago, and only now in the modern age has it been revealed that Nephilim may be a name or descriptive (like American) from the old Hebrew. Theroies of course, abound.

2] Staying on the biblical. Joesph (step-Dad of Jesus) was translated as being a carpenter. A poor man to be sure in the those days. But the Masonic works translate his career as "Craftsman". Craftsmen in those days were in guilds and quite wealthy. This also ties into their (and others belife) that the family of Jesus was actually directly tied to the Jewish royalty of the area (thus the threat to King Herrod, the ties to King David and why he was persecuted as the King of the Jews). But since the bible has said otherwise since at least the 4th century, the legend superceedes the facts (or new interpretations of those facts).

So everyone here is making a valid point in their arguements, and none of you are wrong. But that is just my opinion and open to interrpretation as well

[Kaiddin]

1] Nephlim has been translate as "Giant" from the book of Genesis, but actually has no translation at all. It was mistranslated as Giant ages ago, and only now in the modern age has it been revealed that Nephilim may be a name or descriptive (like American) from the old Hebrew. Theroies of course, abound.

I read somewhere, can't locate the source right now, that Sheol was simply the garbage dump at Jerusalem. Not a nice place. Tradition built on this until it became Hell.

So everyone here is making a valid point in their arguements, and none of you are wrong.

Was this supposed to be a debate to the death?