It is a common meme in our modern age that history is written by the winners. That is, the paper trail of\u00a0evidence\u00a0we have is there\u00a0because\u00a0those who won the battles and controlled the empires made it say what it said for their purposes. \u00a0Of course this is a little broad, as we\u00a0sometimes\u00a0have alternate versions of history from sources clearly outside the dominate viewpoint. \u00a0Nonetheless, it\u2019s a popular narrative, and it is the milk and\u00a0honey\u00a0of modern scholarship, especially the very agenda driven scholarship today that does not seek to follow the evidence, but seeks to make sure the\u00a0evidence\u00a0conforms to what we already know should be true.<\/p>\n
The ease with which this narrative allows us to rewrite anything from the past is almost breathtaking. After all, we reason, if the history was written by the winners, that suggests strongly that the history cannot be trusted. And in our era of rebels without a cause, we\u2019re going to assume anyone fighting the machine was the good guys who were right. \u00a0This is especially true if the ones fighting the machine were advancing something I support. \u00a0So from here it takes modern scholars no time at all to say that clearly historical narrative X is false, and rather Z is true, even if we have no\u00a0evidence\u00a0for Z, because X was only written to oppress the masses. \u00a0X clearly is false.<\/p>\n
Now, thinking people who were smart enough to avoid college will step back at this\u00a0point\u00a0and say, \u201cWait a minute. \u00a0Maybe X is false. \u00a0But how do you know Z is true? \u00a0Just because X is false doesn\u2019t mean Z is true. \u00a0Heck, just because X was written by the winners doesn\u2019t\u00a0necessarily\u00a0mean X is false. \u00a0And again, even if it is, you can\u2019t say Z is true unless you have\u00a0evidence, can you?\u201d<\/p>\n
Well, our intrepid observer sans college degree is correct. \u00a0First off, just because\u00a0history\u00a0was written by \u2018the winners\u2019 does not, in itself, mean that the history written was false. \u00a0It may have been slanted, focused on certain things, but maybe not entirely false. \u00a0Or heck, it might have been true. Should we assume that just because our society venerates Martin Luther King, Jr., and celebrates the Civil Rights era, that I should dismiss anything it says? \u00a0After all, Civil Rights is celebrated by all the vendors of public information, and if the narrative is correct, doesn\u2019t that mean we might only be getting select versions of MLK and the Civil Rights era? \u00a0Should we dismiss that? \u00a0Hmmm?<\/p>\n
So just because something is the narrative of the established culture or society or political power or whatever, doesn\u2019t \u00a0mean it\u2019s necissarily wrong. \u00a0But even if it is, even if we find out that the \u2018official story\u2019 was warped and twisetd and a string of lies, then what? \u00a0Especially if we follow with the popular examples of the powerful destroying and wiping out evidence of any competing ideas. \u00a0I mean, we just can\u2019t say something is true unless there is evidence. \u00a0Why, there could be missing\u00a0evidence\u00a0that suggests\u00a0neither\u00a0official paper trail X, or alternate theory based on my own views Z are true. \u00a0Correct?<\/p>\n