Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2012, 08:34 AM   #41
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 12

Will be interesting to see how the 21st century is depicted in a 1000 years time, given the great lengths that governments around the world go to cover their secrets and misdemeanors.
riconos is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2012, 08:47 AM   #42
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2010
From: Rhondda
Posts: 2,964

Quote:
Originally Posted by riconos View Post
Will be interesting to see how the 21st century is depicted in a 1000 years time, given the great lengths that governments around the world go to cover their secrets and misdemeanors.
Like all other times, as, 'The third-rate silly waxworks where the generations go.'
Iolo is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 02:04 PM   #43

annelouise17's Avatar
Colonial Savage
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Hanover In
Posts: 4,289
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Ranke View Post
Which is probably just as well as I think a few of his soldiers would have happily blown his brains out, not that he had any in the first place. I know he is an American legend and I may be guilty of blasphemy but I am consistent as we in the UK had Cornwallis. No denying Custer is an American legend but the brave soldiers of the Seventh Cavalry paid the ultimate price for his stupidity. Charging headlong into the Confederate ranks against a known foe with similar tactics is one thing but splitting one's command against an enemy whose numbers were unknown and in their own environment was folly of the highest magnitude. Any soldier is only as good as his superior Officer's strategy and tactics allow him to be and Custer let his Command down on both counts.
BLASPHEMY The man of a pompous ass. Rushing in where Angels fear to thread, you won't get any argumnent here on Custers stupidity.
annelouise17 is online now  
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:35 PM   #44

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,990
Blog Entries: 51

I think there is so many inaccurate stories in history as so much had been recorded by its victors in wars though out the ages. The only truth can be found is the evidence from relics from the past and if today's historians are unwilling to show proof then they are telling lies.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:40 PM   #45

Pedro's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: On a mountain top in Costa Rica. yeah...I win!!
Posts: 12,469
Blog Entries: 1

Maybe the question should be, 'Is accuracy really history?'
Pedro is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 03:53 PM   #46

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,990
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
Maybe the question should be, 'Is accuracy really history?'
Well that's been my theory all a long. Who can believe what is written in history.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 04:15 PM   #47

Silkroad's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA
Posts: 158

Considering that all those who record or document histories all have their own prejudices—positive or negative—an agenda, an innate need to portray their “side” in a positive light, and possess only one point of view, it seems to me that historical text is always slanted one way or another.

There is no such thing as objectivity, we all are conditioned by our backgrounds, our ideals, our knowledge—in short we reproduce “history” as our positionality dictates. That simply deals with the personalities behind our records/archives/documentaries.

The other point that has been raised is the marshaling of facts. Let’s just look at our “favorite” quantitative measure, statistics. We all know how to interpret data to fit our preconceived notions of what ought to be, or how to fit the numbers into what we want to prove. I think that we also know about the studies done to show that people have a tendency to believe, gather, and disseminate data that proves their worldview and religio-philosophical inclinations.

So I think the various histories we have reflect the reality of the events portrayed to a certain extend but are biased according to the circumstances of the author/collector of the relevant data as well as the political dictates of the time. Just think of North Korean history written by North Korean scholars vs. South Korean or American ones for example.
Silkroad is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 06:07 PM   #48

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 3,584
Blog Entries: 3

I think we all accept that history is highly subjective. As for basic accuracy, I think it really varies. As I've been doing research for a conference paper I'm being increasingly convinced that we have no idea what happened when in the seventh century between Byzantium and the Muslims. And there's a PhD thesis and a half dozen articles right there.
Kirialax is online now  
Old November 13th, 2012, 06:40 PM   #49
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahn View Post
I think history is more often forgotten than it is inaccurate. So many events happened that we probably will never know of.

I think history from the last thousand plus years is accurate. Obviously the further back in time you go, the more chance there is for error.

History was passed down by word of mouth for so long. It would have been very easy to misunderstand someone and change the story
Maybe, but it is easy to verify that plenty of ancient military figures are plainly epic wild fantasy; the systematic chauvinistic bias could hardly be any more evident among most Classical historians, let say Herodotos or LF Arrianus.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 08:55 PM   #50

viking's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1,461

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirialax View Post
I think we all accept that history is highly subjective. As for basic accuracy, I think it really varies. As I've been doing research for a conference paper I'm being increasingly convinced that we have no idea what happened when in the seventh century between Byzantium and the Muslims. And there's a PhD thesis and a half dozen articles right there.
You do not have to go back as far as ancient times to see history distorted. I mentioned as an example the thread about the charge of the light brigade as an example of trying to ascertain the truth. But I'll come closer to our time. The retreat from Dunkirk was 1940, it's extremely well documented so the truth should be plain to see, yet somehow historians are often at loggerheads ove detail and detail can warp the findings.
viking is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
accurate


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.