General Discussion

ITAL

(1,199 posts)

5. To a certain degree it can only be an art

Wed Jul 30, 2025, 03:10 PM

Jul 30

There are facts of course (such and such happened on whatever day), but much of history will always be debated or viewed through various prisms. Is history as a contest between oppressors and oppressed (and all the various subgroups of that, like men/women or colonialist, etc.) as some say, or is there more nuance? Do leaders lead really popular movements and shape opinion, or do they generally follow the popular zeitgeist (hence leaders aren't actually that important) whatever it is?

Historians will often disagree on what makes a great president or a top general (or nearly as often WHO was a great president or general), and often what traits work for one person won't work for another. Why is that? Just circumstance?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Is So Much of What We Call "History" Wrong? [View all] GreatGazoo Jul 30 OP

The "winners" write it. H2O Man Jul 30 #1

This NewHendoLib Jul 30 #2

That, and the fact that most people don't give a damn thucythucy Jul 30 #4

"How much do we devote, yearly, to the preservation..."? Billions of $$$ GreatGazoo Jul 30 #7

I specifically tried to exclude tourism and tourist attractions, thucythucy Jul 30 #15

I hear you on NFL expenses vs history preservation GreatGazoo Jul 30 #17

I agree that the study of history has and is making great strides. thucythucy Aug 2 #33

Americans are more interested in science fiction than history. thought crime Jul 30 #18

That simple malaise Jul 30 #8

Not always TnDem Jul 30 #12

But which "holy" texts were chosen to be included in the Bible, Aristus Jul 30 #16

The Bible isn't history. thought crime Jul 30 #19

"Nobody reads anymore." Kid Berwyn Jul 31 #27

;--{) Goonch Jul 31 #28

Countering Criticism of the Warren Report (CIA, PDF) Kid Berwyn Jul 31 #29

There are no facts. Only interpretations. Friedrich Nietzsche Ping Tung Jul 30 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author thought crime Jul 30 #20

To a certain degree it can only be an art ITAL Jul 30 #5

"Why it happened" is much more debatable than 'What happened' GreatGazoo Jul 30 #6

Nice OP malaise Jul 30 #9

Ironically, your version of the scan of Shakespeare's grave is completely wrong muriel_volestrangler Jul 30 #10

GPR shows no skull, no casket or coffin, not even nails from a rotted coffin. GreatGazoo Jul 30 #11

The irony of your attempt to spin this against the reality is quite hilarious muriel_volestrangler Jul 30 #13

I cited the Shakespeare myth specifically for the dynamic you are helping to illustrate GreatGazoo Jul 30 #14

Sure, go on denying what the people who did the scan said, if it makes you feel OK muriel_volestrangler Jul 31 #22

Kevin Colls says there is no skull under that stone and no coffin GreatGazoo Jul 31 #23

So we've gone from "Shakespeare isn't buried there. It's empty" to 5, including him, buried in shallow graves in shrouds muriel_volestrangler Jul 31 #24

According to Colls and science, Is Shakespeare's skull in that infant-sized "grave"? Yes or No GreatGazoo Jul 31 #25

They don't know if the skull is in there or not, but the grave is not "infant-sized" muriel_volestrangler Jul 31 #30

"It's very very convincing to me that his skull isn't at Holy Trinity at all." - Colls GreatGazoo Aug 1 #31

In your arguments in this thread, you have said: muriel_volestrangler Aug 1 #32

SInce you mentioned "Gilgamesh", I'll leave you this historical tidbit: Gilgamesh gave birth to Hamas. RedWhiteBlueIsRacist Jul 30 #21

Well said! nt intrepidity Jul 31 #26

It is manipulated thru time to say what one wants republianmushroom Aug 2 #34