# history of the winners????



## Apo (Jan 5, 2005)

i studied History for long years and I always felt something was wrong with the way it was taught at school. Maybe that can explain why I failed the three times I took the history teacher test....  

Anyway, I was reading the last book of my favorite author (Bernard Werber) and in it, something appealed me: what if history as we are taught is only the winners' history. After all, what do we know of the people who failed against Roma, Greeks, or Attila? Not much. Only what the winners historians told us. What do we really know of Precolombian civilisations if not told by the Spanish conquistadores and priests? not much. The thing is that we only know about those lost people from the eyes of another civilzation, or from legends.... how sad it is !!!

I really think every civilisation, even every clan has something to teach to others. We can learn from everyone, and not only from the strongest, the meaniest or the luckiest. Sometimes you find answers from the smallest things. What about History? Is it really the human kind story or only the tale of all those battles the winners won??? What's the point of it?

Hum... food for my brain


----------



## Neon (Jan 5, 2005)

It's just one of those things I guess, for good or ill, that will be.  The winners always dictate the way a story or battle is told .... take for example names of war locations.  History normally records the ultimate winner's description of that event.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 6, 2005)

Indeed - it is the history of the winners. Don't you think our perception of World War II, for example, would be completely different if Nazi Germany had won the war?


----------



## Alexa (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't want even to think about that possibility, Brian.  

In my opinion, it's the history of the winners in the next period of a battle (maybe 10-20 years depending how long the winners have the power). But after that period, the others manage to tell their side of the story, or at least they try to do it. In time, the truth see the light for those who want to see it. But this is another story.

The sad part is the history has a way to be repeated, like we didn't learn anything from the past.


----------



## Hellsheep (Jan 9, 2005)

Alexa said:
			
		

> I don't want even to think about that possibility, Brian.
> 
> The sad part is the history has a way to be repeated, like we didn't learn anything from the past.


1 NaziGermany could imposibly have won against everyone, thus there would be someone still knowing our part of the truth

2 History doesn't repeat itself, the historians only crib from each other  
-T.Pratchet


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 9, 2005)

The winners do, most definitely, write the history books -- but there is still the oral tradition: songs, stories, poetry, etc.  And there are other relics of the past which can tell their own tales, sometimes in contradiction of the accepted versions.  After a period of time, when the winners are all as dead as any of the losers, some of these stories come out.

As for history repeating itself, this comes about partly through ignorance, but also because even people who know and understand the lessons of history may be unwilling to believe that those lessons apply to them -- in their particular case there are always Reasons why what they are doing is Actually Completely Different.


----------



## Neil040 (Jan 9, 2005)

A good question Apo... and well answered already by others.. I think one thing about the present day, despite the terrible things happening, is that more so than ever before people have an opportunity to put on record THEIR view of events... so the winners have a tougher time convincing everyone of their heroic prowess... as in Iraq today... Fox News can bleat relentlessly every day about how magnificent the victory was but the news cameras and newspapers will continue to tell the tale of continuing death and destruction..

EDIT  : and your avatar little pussy cat had better look out.. Ollie the dog is looking her way!!!


----------



## Alexa (Jan 9, 2005)

"Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results." (Machiavelli)

EDIT : Neil, that pussy cat might really look at Ollie one day !


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 9, 2005)

It seems to me that part of the reason that the winners' histories are the  ones that come down to us, is that the winners have always had the power and the resources to make sure that their version of events get preserved and the power and the resources to make sure that the losers' versions either never get written or get destroyed if they do get written.

In other words, for the most part throughout history, the winners have owned the media outlets - whatever those outlets might be at any point in time.

In one way, we live in a time when the losers have an advantage - it is easier to disseminate and preserve a "nonofficial" version of events than it ever was before.  Why?  The Internet, among other things.  But that is countered by the big-time (read "official") outlets, which are coming to be owned by fewer and fewer people with more and more specific agendas to promote.  That means that they can get their message out to more people at a time _where that message will be seen._  Sure, news and commentary go out faster on the 'Net than they often do on radio and television, and certainly faster than in newspapers.  However, more people see and hear radio, tv, and papers than see the Internet on a regular basis.  Yes, even still now.  The other advantage that these corporate media outlets have is an advantage that the winners have always had thoughout history - they can very effectively marginalize anyone who only has access to less widely-seen media.

You've heard the mantra: "Be careful to evaluate anything you see on the Internet - make sure your sources are reliable."  And that's a good thing to keep in mind.  Some things you find on the Internet aren't reliable.  But it is very easy for a government or a corporation, someone who has money, power, and access, to say that anyone who says anything contrary to the official line isn't, in fact, reliable.  And it's easy for them to be believable to the majority of the public, because they are the brand name.  And most people trust brand names over generic brands most of the time.

So, it isn't like the bad old days, when the winners just went out and killed everyone who might spread the losers' story in a believable way, or let them live but prohibited them from writing, or let them write but made sure as far as they could (and they weren't always successful) that those writings didn't get out.  Nah.  Now, the established media, often with the overt or covert help of the government (the ultimate winners), just talk louder and longer and more than the less rich and powerful (the losers) who have conflicting views.

And check this out: governments are most certainly _not_ above paying off those in the media to promote their point of view.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jan 10, 2005)

I can not believe somebody quoted Terry Pratchett....

Modern historians are far better equipped than they were fifty years ago.  The modern media machine is massive, too big by far to be controlled entirely.  The 'winners' are generally the most affluent countries and thus their version of history receives the most coverage and reaches the wider audiences.  Do you honestly believe that the invasion of Iraq will be viewed in a positive light for the supposed winners, the American and British?  The problem we have in this debate is with what you define as history.  The history that we see on television is always questionable, as is the whole television medium.  The history that we are taught at school is vague, outdated and delivered to us by an uninterested wretch of a being (the teacher).  The history we are taught at university is the 'history' I refer to.  It is pathologically unbiased.  The only bias being what you the reader/learner choose not to ignore.


----------



## Neil040 (Jan 10, 2005)

You guys sure make a person think.. which of course is good!  Great thoughts deserve great responses... sadly right now I aint up to it but still feel like a feeble stab at it before I retire to me bed...

I think the best thing about media, history, news today is that we have a choice.. its not much of a choice for some who choose their cosy familiar life affirming news sources.. such as fox news.. but for the rest of us we can and do choose.. and the more choices we have the better the chance that we can decide and conclude more coherently..  one of my news sources is euronews on sat here.. I remember when they extended their coverage to the former soviet states and included russian as one of their languages.. I am not saying they are THE unbiased news source but I cannot see it as else but a good thing..

The internet is a maniac.. the truth is out there but go loaded for bear..   lol

EDIT : shush...  Alexa... Ollie is a pussycat but he does not know it really,, I think he is scared of cats really!


----------

