History is a set of lies agreed upon.
This jaded Napoleon Bonaparte quotation is probably more accurately stated, “History is a set of stories agreed upon.”
Probably.
Still, it touches on a salient idea … that what we know of the past is largely determined by what someone before us wanted us to know. For better or for worse, we see our world through a tinted lens.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pm EST
Hoo, boy, is you ever a cynic now. Are you assuming that because you were taught what someone else wanted you to know, that it was not the truth?
If you believe in absolute truth, somewhere there is a copy of history — a set of stories — that someone wants you to know. It is also a given that somewhere, someone else probably does not want you to believe what is true.
You will have to consider the sources. You might not even find it so hard to start saying “we” again, especially after you get a good look at “them”.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:47 pm EST
Napoleon was the cynical one … but I’m pretty sure that he was more of an insider than I am. And judging from the topics and perspectives of my history books growing up, I think he was on to something.
But you’re dead-right … very few of the original sources used in those books were cited. Now that the Information Age is upon us, I kinda wonder if history will become more accountable!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:53 pm EST
I have a hard time believing that all historians had an ‘agenda’ and none had a sense of professional ethics or of honesty.
I’m curious as to which historical events you believe are fiction and which ones you think are fact. Are you thinking Biblical history? Ancient Western History? Ancient Chinese History? Or are you thinking more modern history?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:44 am EST
Man, I must be getting worse and worse at English. Let me try to make this really clear:
1. Napoleon apparently thought that history, or the written record of the past, was determined primarily because of agreement, not necessarily because of veracity. And he must have experienced some sort of canonization of what he believed were lies.
2. I’m not smart enough to evaluate Napoleon’s statement nor do I know much about history … but I do know that at some point in the past, someone picked every single story that was ever taught to me as “history”. Most were true, some were lies (i.e. the history of Native Americans), but all were at some point chosen to be the most important things for me to learn. For better or for worse, my understanding of history is viewed through someone else’s perspective.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:35 am EST
your english works for me. i got it.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:44 am EST
i’m just thinking, but wasn’t it perfectly legit for people to write down what happened hundreds of years ago and it be correct, simply because it had passed down using memory and voice so well? we use so much paper (and binary) to pass information it is ridiculous, where as before the 17th century paper wasn’t made out of wood the way we do it, it was made out of rags, papyrus was popular and bamboo. i’m not sure on the bamboo but if i’m wrong bamboo is still prettttyyy awesome.
and writing things in stone is expensive.
but history itself? i try not believe what i learned (except math, and even thats kinda sketchy, i mean, everyone knows 1+1=2, but a+b=c? messed up man.)
in k-8 i knew my teachers weren’t trying to fool me but just using what they had. even in high school, it was the same.
but really, i have people lying to me everyday. as long as my major beliefs are verifiable, then i’m fine with that.
on the other hand…you can’t be in the past and know what the hecks going on. didn’t history used to be good versus evil, evil won and became the good so long as no one remembered it was evil? now we can compile the facts (so…many…facts…dang it wikipedia) and get our opinion from facts.
it is nice to know the truth…isn’t it though…
isn’t our day to day life compiled upon facts and lies of what we read and compared to what we know? isn’t that…life? meh, i’m just talking to much now.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:20 pm EST
True. We all have the personal priviledge of finding that happy medium between tossing everything you’ve ever read in a history book (a.k.a. become a “revisionist”) and at least knowing you’re hearing only one perspective and weighing it accordingly…
December 9th, 2007 at 3:23 am EST
December 9th, 2007 at 8:27 am EST
Most Valuable Comment to David, yo.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:06 pm EST
its impossible…ok just stay with me, i’m thinking in type…impossible to be truly unbiased unless you have all the information, and even then its all on how you are able to process it? so even without bias and nuance we have our views of life, so we interpret things differently.
but based on limited assumptions…
based on the fact that we get info from people on history (writers generally) then wouldn’t the best view we can get from history be not just in understanding the writing, but where the writer is coming from?
i don’t understand how I find history interesting. Is it the way my perspective is set, or is it my curiousity to know everything? I like studying history because i like seeing how beautiful and inventive people can be…
ha lance i love using your site to understand things.