?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
01 June 2004 @ 07:20 am
History  

"History" isn't "what happened." It's the stories we tell ourselves about what appears to us to have happened....

 
 
Current Mood: thoughtfulthoughtful
 
 
 
   .: beernumbat on June 1st, 2004 05:35 am (UTC)
Yah. History isn't what is use to be.
A monstrous ramblingbibliofile on June 1st, 2004 10:44 am (UTC)
Exactly.
Larry Sandersonlsanderson on June 1st, 2004 05:42 am (UTC)
Good quote!
Fred A Levy Haskell: eyes of Geri's Fredfredcritter on June 1st, 2004 06:43 am (UTC)

Thanks! I think I thunk it up all by myself. With a little help on perspective from me friends, of course....

Coyote's getting bolder: faceruneshower on June 1st, 2004 07:58 am (UTC)
I like your "comment" icon! Not a square, just a tiny rectangle of eyes peeking out. Great idea, I'll have to make one of those! :-)
Fred A Levy Haskell: eyes of the Fredcritterfredcritter on June 1st, 2004 10:52 pm (UTC)

Thanks!</br> I figure when I'm replying to someone within my own d*mn*d post it's silly to take up a lot of vertical screen space with the headline. (When I actually remember to change the picture from "(default)" to "eyes", that is….)

Carol Kennedycakmpls on June 1st, 2004 08:01 am (UTC)
I agree that that's true of our personal history. I think that "history" as in "the history of the world" is "the stories the winners tell about what they want others to believe happened."

(The idea that history is written by the winners is, of course, not original with me.)
dd-bdd_b on June 1st, 2004 08:41 am (UTC)
Check into the literature about the Civil War and the Vietnam War, though.
Carol Kennedycakmpls on June 1st, 2004 10:30 am (UTC)
I think that it's getting harder and harder for the winners' side of the story to knock out the other sides, as communication becomes more multifaceted and virtually instantaneous. In more recent times, it might be more accurate to say that there is no history, there are only histories.