Sayings like "victors decide history" are obviously false if the intent behind the phrase is that cultural dominance literally dictates what events have and have not already happened. However, this statement is sometimes said to express the idea that only those who come out of power struggles victorious will have the broadest influence when it comes to telling other people what they claim is history. A stance like this might even be the foundation of someone's skepticism of historical claims, since they just assume that authorities would not be honest if it makes them appear in a negative light. Of course, some historical figures would choose to do this, but reason exposes how these kinds of historical claims are not why such claims are unknowable.
In other words, historical events other than the fact that time and matter were brought into existence at some point--the kinds of events addressed by practically every historical text--are unprovable anyway. No amount of consistent documentation proves that an event happened. There is not a need to think about how a victorious culture might want to spread lies in order to appear more powerful to realize this, and it would also be a grand assumption to believe that this is the only way literally every powerful culture treats history. While it might be a popular kind of historical skepticism in an age where governments are regarded with suspicion, it is still just a red herring that does not have to be focused on at all.
Any leader or society that does actively seek to spread misinformation as long as it benefits them is guilty of an obvious disregard for truth, which only undermines whatever illusory legitimacy they might think their formal relationship to other leaders and cultures entitles them to. Rationalists and even those who simply find themselves enamored with history can find comfort in knowing that none of the victor's actions can change the truth about how a given war unfolded or how a given regime governed its citizens. Clearly, it would be pragmatically useful for some people in positions of power to try to hide or twist the actual nature of their rule, but it is not as if history itself is or can be altered by this.
Historical events that have happened indeed happened even if all evidence of their occurrence was purged for the sake of egoists who care about nothing as much as their own personal power. Now, this fact which is true by necessity does not establish that there was an ancient war between Sparta and Persia, a 1900s figure named Martin Luther King Jr., or even something as recent as a terrorist attack on two American towers on 9/11. All that can ultimately be known about history are logically necessary truths, which of course tell us nothing about which specific things have happened since the beginning of the universe and the present day.
A political leader can attempt to deceive their populace and those of other nations all they wish; their futile stupidity has changed nothing about what has and has not actually taken place. The core of historical epistemology is unaffected by the delusional intentions of certain tyrants and deceivers, making a fixation on how "victors write history" a mere overemphasis on something that does not even touch upon why historical documentation is actually unverifiable. People cannot prove that a culture's recounting of its history is true for reasons that are far more important and penetrating than the fact that it is possible for leaders to use their power to promote lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment