Is rewriting history a bad thing, if the history being rewritten was biased or rose colored in the first place? Or is rewriting history only a bad thing if the new version is false?
If itās biased or rose-colored then doesnāt that mean that itās false? If you want to rewrite anything it needs to be more accurate than the original version, not something that fits a particular narrative or ideology.
Only, it wasnāt. No one is taught that Columbus baked cookies for the Indians.
I donāt think partial history is false, because the part being told is accurate. But leaving out, or glossing over important events because they tarnish the reputation of a beloved historical figure should be rectified IMO. That seems to be mostly what is happening right now- the events/actions of historical figures that paint them in a bad light are now being emphasized.
I suppose āfalseā might not be the right term, but itās not totally accurate if significant things are left out.
If itās going to be re-written it should be done accurately, otherwise itās not better than the previous version. Itās better to have an inaccurate or partial version of history and recognize it as such than a different set of lies that you believe to be true.
1 Like
Speaking of this, seeing as the Minneapolis city council voted to completely disband the police, how do they plan to handle incidents like this in the future:
If George Floydās death was a tragedy then what do you call this?
Columbusā ādiscoveryā of the new world was the beginning of the intentional extermination of indigenous people of the americas, and the start of the transatlantic slave trade. It was also the beginning of the Westernization and expansion of europeans into America and all the good that followed. Yet, up until recently, Columbus was a universally celebrated figure with a national holiday in America. Maybe things have changed quite a bit since i was in school learning about Columbus, but back then the negatives were certainly glossed over and not given nearly as much time or emphasis as āEurocentric viewā, and Columbus, along with Columbus day was celebrated. But thatās just one example.
Totally agree. I guess, where are the lies you are seeing?
Did they cancel Columbus day?
Iām speaking hypothetically more than anything in response to your equally vague questions.
If he Aztecs had ādiscoveredā Spain and had a technological advantage, what would they have done? The Aztecs were also empire builders. Imagine if you were a member of a people that the Aztecs had conquered and then witnessed them sacrifice thousands of your people. How would you feel about them? The one day, a new people show up and conquer the Aztecs. Do you think you would feel sorry for them or think that there is indeed justice in the world?
Because people can consider historical figures in context. Also, the origin of Columbus Day is not what people think. But thatās America for you.
significant widespread pushback against Columbus and Columbus day has been relatively recent as far as i know.
I dont think ive asked any vague questions, but would be happy to try and rephrase if you point them out to me.
This is wrong as it goes back 150 years. Ironically, among the first people to argue against Columbus Day were the KKK.
Depends on who you ask and when you ask them. You can make a case for the Mongol Empire accomplishing all kinds of great things we benefit from today, but if you ask one of the millions slaughtered they might disagree with your case. Nobodyās written that book for Adolph Hitler yet, but someone will eventually.
The sort of re-writing of history Iām concerned with here is just your run-of-the-mill behavior from your garden-variety Marxist revolutionary. You know, more of the same Orwellian nonsense thatās continued to make its way into mainstream thought over the span of decades. The same reason that narratives with no basis in fact now dominate our national discussion and the same reason that challenging that narrative is to admit guilt of the most heinous sin possible today, racism.
Actually, the Spanish were very inclusive for the times. Descendants of the last Aztec emperor are still among as Spanish noblemen
Not saying that the arrival of the Spanish was a horrible event for the locals, but the languages and people have survived. La Noche Triste has shown us how the story would have played out had the roles been reversed.
Also, itās worth noting that Cortes would not have been able to conquer Mexico with a couple of hundred Spaniards without almost 200k Tlaxcalans and Oaxcalans.
Which narratives that dominate national discussion have no basis in fact?
Systemic racism is to blame for the deaths of {insert BLM martyr here}.
Ahmaud Arbery was killed because of racism. Full stop.
I think its a pretty easy to see that systematic racism empowered the white guys who murdered him. But yeah, at the end of the day it was two racists, not systematic racism that killed him.
You donāt know that.
Therein lies the rub with the entire national discussion weāve got going on with race in the USA. There is no, repeat NO mainstream disagreement regarding equal protection under the law. Nobody is advocating for a return to Jim Crow or Black codes. You can find segregationists among āprogressivesā, but even that is still a fringe opinion.
Whatās left is stamping out perceived racism, which is impossible. This is why weāve moved on to concepts like white privilege and other forms of āracismā that cannot be actively detected or proven not to exist, but are, according to the narrative, so rampant that the entire system must be torn down and rebuilt by woke activists.
If you buy into the notion that invisible racism is not only real, but an existential threat to minorities, then all sorts of drastic measures to combat the nebulous scourge make perfect sense. Such is the power of the narrative.
2 Likes
You didnāt need to be conquered by them, they were sacrificing other Aztecs too.
I never heard anything of the sort, but I live in Canada and we donāt celebrate Columbus day anyway.
I didnāt mean that in a negative way, this question here seemed to be just asking in general rather than about anything specific: