![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Another thought
Jun. 5th, 2006 04:48 amOf course you can't spend time thinking about futures without thinking about History at some point. Or at least I can't. But then I have been told that my thought process is unique. Actually those were not the exact words used but we will stick with them,eh?
The whole concept of History as we know it today is realatively modern,coinciding roughly with the printing press. Before that the term was actually interchangable with story. Which leads me roughly to what little point I have this morning.
There is a truism that History reflects the record of the Victor. Certainly there is a point to that, as Stalin tried to show us and which the US has tried with less drastic measures from time to time. But I would say that such is not always the truth. Think about it for a moment. Who is one of the first names that comes to mind when thinking of dark ages Britain? King Arthur. Now, not only did Arthur lose within the reality that we are told was his story, but his people in general lost the island in the long run. But we remember his name far easier than those of the other battle chieftains of the time because he had such a good storyteller..well actually many.
And that is the problem with History today. We have substituted data for drama. Which is more important..the dates around a given event or who slept with whom. And even more important..why they did. It is amazing how much of European history revolves around the bedroom.
Back to the point. We need to get back to the root of History..the story. Put the dates in a footnote. Bardi's general hypothesis on history. Why feed people data and tell them that they have to remember it when you can feed them stories that make them want to remember? just a thought.
The whole concept of History as we know it today is realatively modern,coinciding roughly with the printing press. Before that the term was actually interchangable with story. Which leads me roughly to what little point I have this morning.
There is a truism that History reflects the record of the Victor. Certainly there is a point to that, as Stalin tried to show us and which the US has tried with less drastic measures from time to time. But I would say that such is not always the truth. Think about it for a moment. Who is one of the first names that comes to mind when thinking of dark ages Britain? King Arthur. Now, not only did Arthur lose within the reality that we are told was his story, but his people in general lost the island in the long run. But we remember his name far easier than those of the other battle chieftains of the time because he had such a good storyteller..well actually many.
And that is the problem with History today. We have substituted data for drama. Which is more important..the dates around a given event or who slept with whom. And even more important..why they did. It is amazing how much of European history revolves around the bedroom.
Back to the point. We need to get back to the root of History..the story. Put the dates in a footnote. Bardi's general hypothesis on history. Why feed people data and tell them that they have to remember it when you can feed them stories that make them want to remember? just a thought.
