Rewriting history

History is an amazingly fluid discipline. Each nation seems to write it with a bias towards themselves, and what is fashionable and therefore 'good' one century is vilified the next.
It's fascinating to see the trends change by perusing old books.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

Calling it trends is trivializing it imho. Events and actions have long-term effects not necessarily foreseen or intended, which is the basis of the old aphorism "only history will tell" when we really mean we will need hindsight to judge. It is unfortunate when politicians and the narrow-minded try to varnish history to suit their own ideological views by continuing to sanitize history books and curriculum to provide only their version of history (e.g., Florida's actions to provide only the white, Euro version of colonization, slavery, etc.) or by attempting to erase and destroy vestiges of the past (e.g., the efforts to tear down statues of Confederate leaders and rename anything and everything carrying the name of someone who was a slave holder or involved in the genocide of Native Americans). History is the telling of all sides of what happened rather than a whitewashed judgement for one side or the other; otherwise we learn nothing from it and are doomed to re-live it as Santayana so poignantly said. History should be taught as an ongoing novel rather than a memorization of dates and names as if it is etched in stone.

MandyMitchell · 80-89, F

@dancingtongue Every nation has its own version of history - and it seems the US is no different. Even the modern ideas of showing colonisation as a 'bad' or evil thing tends to focus on European colonisation and marginalise non-European conquests and colonisers, such as Arabs, Chinese, Turks, Burmese, Bantu, etc.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@MandyMitchell Good point. I was only using examples I was most familiar with. The issue really is of context: at any given moment we all are operating within a set of ever-shifting value systems, which should be taken into consideration. Those who rose above them to lead major changes (the Mandelas and Martin Luther Kings) need to be honored; those who did horrible things no matter the times (Hitler and the Holocaust) need to be repudiated. But neither should be expunged or we learn nothing, and the vast majority of people just trying to survive within the systems they are born into should not be criminalized. Imho. And yes, you are right, it should be acknowledged that part of the context is that it is not a U.S. (or any other single nation) thing; not just a white supremacy racial thing; not just a one religion thing.

MandyMitchell · 80-89, F

@dancingtongue Indeed - mandela was a terrorist before he became a saint! - colonisation has been a constant for ever; as has slavery until the evil British empire decided to try and stop it. Interesting thing this white supremacy- maybe like the indian caste system when some castes could not share food with white people in case it ruined their caste- or the fact that black slaves were all pronounced free in the UK before white slaves were.

bijouxbroussard · F

@MandyMitchell

until the evil British empire decided to try and stop it.

Said "evil" British empire participated in and profited from the slave trade, right ? When they stopped it they had already established it in their land and territories. That doesn’t make them heroes, especially since they considered themselves superior to the people they trafficked.

European colonization has arguably affected the largest numbers of the world’s population as it exists today. And in the United States, there were no "white slaves", although our white supremacists here like to maintain that bit of revisionist history (indentured servants were not the same thing).

Collective guilt about the past has run the gamut here:

Discussions about reparations promised after the Civil War (ultimately paid to some former slaveowners).

"Affirmative action" programs that eventually benefited white women more than anyone else.

The South deciding in the 21st century that if they couldn’t somehow justify being on the losing side that fought to own human beings and socially disenfranchise people based upon race (in "the land of the free, home of the brave"), they’d make sure it wasn’t taught about, or read about, by laws and mass book-banning.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@bijouxbroussard

(indentured servants were not the same thing).

I get your distinction, and it is a valid one. Otoh, to send all the Irish and others in debtors prison over as a way to work off their debts, or to serve their punishment for crimes, and then turn around and fume about the immigrant classes taking away jobs, being a burden to society, etc., comes from a very similar, if not quite as horrendous, mold.

MandyMitchell · 80-89, F

@bijouxbroussard Yes indeed; Britain did profit from the slave trade and would have continued to profit from it had the Christian pressure groups not encouraged the government to stop it - the first empire in the world to do so. For the next seventy years or so the Royal Navy had anti slavery patrols across the world to stop the trade at times with a quarter of the RN involved. There were also anti slavery expeditions on land until at least the 1920s.
There were white slaves in the UK until 1799, bound for life. The last black slave was freed in 1782 in the UK.

bijouxbroussard · F

@MandyMitchell Under what circumstances did the UK procure "white slaves” ? And from where ? In the US whites were only indentured servants, with rights that actual slaves were not legally permitted.

MandyMitchell · 80-89, F

@bijouxbroussard they were not procured; they were native to the country, born into slavery, bought and sold, bound to the master and the employment with no rights. Even if they joined the navy they could be dragged back and punished. Even after they were legally freed the descendants were treated like second class citizens for decades. @bijouxbroussard

bijouxbroussard · F

@MandyMitchell Were these native born English, or were they from other parts of the UK ?🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇮🇪🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

MandyMitchell · 80-89, F

@bijouxbroussard they were Scots, in the Lothian coal pits, and Scots on the coast for salt pans; horrendous jobs with terrible conditions. Life expectancy for colliers was about 40. Women worked underground even giving birth underground, children of four working 18 hour days; girls malformed from dragging loads of coals and carrying hundredweights of coal up steep ladders hundreds of feet underground.
There were also fishermen bound to their employers and sold to whaling ships in job lots. Salters worked waist deep in salt pans and salt water 15 to 18 hours a day winter and summer.