Distortion of History

[R.Caerbannog]

The only thing objective about history are the number of deaths, the dates and times. Things you can measure quantitatively.

Everything else is pure conjecture. Ask 5 different historians the reasons behind a decision or event and you get 5 different answers that conform to whoever's political beliefs.

One thing I've noticed is that academia has largely homogenized intellectual discussion. As in there might be five different historians, but they're all reading from the same book. They'll have different styles and intonations when presenting the material, but ultimately they're all the same.

Imagine the below, but in higher education and the teachers are all liberal.

 

[AWP]

How dysfunctional was society in 1995? No offense, but the academic environment is different now than it was 30+ years ago .

We are willingly demoralizing a generation of young Americans. What's worse is they're paying for it.

I'm saying this shift began decades ago and I'm not talking about a liberal shift. This prof outright avoided slavery. There wasn't a spin or lies, he just refused to teach us anything about slavery. 30 years later we have people doing and teaching the dumb shit that they do. How much of that began with teachers like the one above refusing to teach slavery or any other contentious subject?

 

[CQB]

Not just political beliefs but any perspective. Five guys in the same battle. Five different vantage points, five different experiences. Five people see Kennedy get shot. Five see the signing of the Paris Accords. What one eyewitness sees is impeachable. What 100 see, you can build the story.

Absolutely. My old history teacher was asked if he ever gave 100% for any assignments and answered no as the immeasurable quantity is why a historical figure made a decision. You can be almost sure but not exactly sure.

 

[Marauder06]

@R.Caerbannog I'm not sure I understand why the origins of WW2 are forbidden to discuss. For me it’s pretty straightforward compared to the origins of WW1. Every book on that has a different angle and they’re all valid.

I think there were three symptoms, and one root cause of WWII:

1) the WWI peace treaty left Germany feeling aggrieved.
2) no one wanted to enforce to provisions of the WWI treaty that restricted Germany's re-armaments, which were fueled by the above aggrievement.
3) appeasement; no one stomped Germany out early for their initial aggressions, which were fueled by the above.

But the main cause of WWII: Germany wasn't conclusively defeated, and didn't consider itself conclusively defeated, in WWI. If you fight someone and you want to make sure you never have to fight them again, you cripple their country, kill everyone who wants to fight, and occupy it until future generations get the message.

 

[Devildoc]

I'm guessing this was a few decades ago too. Imagine that coursework being relatively conservative, compared to what is being pushed on young people today. You had the benefit of knowing it was bullshit, people nowadays do not.

For that degree, yes, 1987-1991.

 

[Box]

I If you fight someone and you want to make sure you never have to fight them again, you cripple their country, kill everyone who wants to fight, and occupy it until future generations get the message.

Wise words
It reminds of of something I read once - can't remember if it was a text book or a comic book...

“We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and we must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war. We cannot change the hearts and minds of those people...
...but we can make war so terrible
...make them so sick of war
...that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it.”

I think it may have been Beetle Bailey - or maybe it was Gunnery Sergeant Vince Carter - who can tell.

 

[Devildoc]

Wise words
It reminds of of something I read once - can't remember if it was a text book or a comic book...

“We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and we must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war. We cannot change the hearts and minds of those people...
...but we can make war so terrible
...make them so sick of war
...that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it.”

I think it may have been Beetle Bailey - or maybe it was Gunnery Sergeant Vince Carter - who can tell.

Yes, a little less eloquent than what Mattis said:

"We come in peace--I didn't bring artillery --but I swear to God if you fuck with me I'll kill you all."

 

[Marauder06]

Many people have said something similar. Sherman comes to mind.

Of course that was back when the US actually won wars.

 

[AWP]

Of course that was back when the US actually won wars.

When you think about it, our generation's high water mark was Desert Storm. I was in high school.

 

[Topkick]

When you think about it, our generation's high water mark was Desert Storm. I was in high school.

I was a buck sergeant and deployed right after that fight was over. Shit was still smoldering on the highway of death. It was a time to pound our chest, but it didn't last long. Bush and Clinton went right to work deconstructing our armed forces.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

I'm saying this shift began decades ago and I'm not talking about a liberal shift. This prof outright avoided slavery. There wasn't a spin or lies, he just refused to teach us anything about slavery. 30 years later we have people doing and teaching the dumb shit that they do. How much of that began with teachers like the one above refusing to teach slavery or any other contentious subject?

I don't know and that's why I'm trying to piece together the mechanism behind this distortion. From what I've seen, there has been a gradual shift in the homogenization of history. I've also seen a negative bias, regarding the history of Western Civilization, that's being used to metaphorically cudgel students.

To me, it seems that white and European students are basically admonished for things they aren't responsible for. Which is insane to me.

I think there were three symptoms, and one root cause of WWII:

1) the WWI peace treaty left Germany feeling aggrieved.
2) no one wanted to enforce to provisions of the WWI treaty that restricted Germany's re-armaments, which were fueled by the above aggrievement.
3) appeasement; no one stomped Germany out early for their initial aggressions, which were fueled by the above.

But the main cause of WWII: Germany wasn't conclusively defeated, and didn't consider itself conclusively defeated, in WWI. If you fight someone and you want to make sure you never have to fight them again, you cripple their country, kill everyone who wants to fight, and occupy it until future generations get the message.

Very good point. The last sentence is something I think is lost on the majority of people. With how crazy things have been though, I'm kinda wondering if we weren't the conquered ones though.

For that degree, yes, 1987-1991.

From your perspective, have you seen a change in academia from that time frame until now? Given what I understand about your profession Doc, I assume that you've seen a variety of social changes; as you progressed through schooling the medical field mandates.

Part of why I'm asking about the changes you've seen, is I'm learning about lesson planning. The template we've been given has a section on diversity at the front and top. Went through a 10 minute spiel on diversity and even had a talk with a teachers assistant, who was trying to convince me it was important when planning a lesson.

Anyone feel free to chime in here, but does anyone remember forced diversity being a thing?

 

[AWP]

I don't know and that's why I'm trying to piece together the mechanism behind this distortion. From what I've seen, there has been a gradual shift in the homogenization of history. I've also seen a negative bias, regarding the history of Western Civilization, that's being used to metaphorically cudgel students.

My take, worth every penny one pays for, is it began with a fear of teaching something. A topic. Any topic. Ignore a topic and you aren't the bad guy, right? You aren't a racist or misogynist or a whatever-ist. Now you've created a vacuum and we know how nature views a vacuum.

If you shy away from even a neutral representation of a subject, the vacuum will be filled. Pro-/ Anti- forces will fill that vacuum and "sponsoring" institutions will allow that void to fill with its prejudices.

I think even a neutral, passive, garbage-ass vanilla presentation of contentious topics would prevent today's problems. That cowardice manifested itself back in the 90's. Ripples, butterflies, 2nd and 3rd order effects, call it what you will.

Silence is appeasement.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

My take, worth every penny one pays for, is it began with a fear of teaching something. A topic. Any topic. Ignore a topic and you aren't the bad guy, right? You aren't a racist or misogynist or a whatever-ist. Now you've created a vacuum and we know how nature views a vacuum.

If you shy away from even a neutral representation of a subject, the vacuum will be filled. Pro-/ Anti- forces will fill that vacuum and "sponsoring" institutions will allow that void to fill with its prejudices.

I think even a neutral, passive, garbage-ass vanilla presentation of contentious topics would prevent today's problems. That cowardice manifested itself back in the 90's. Ripples, butterflies, 2nd and 3rd order effects, call it what you will.

Silence is appeasement.

Do does this mean purging academia and the new generation of useful idiots? We're talking about a few generations of people who have been irreparably demoralized. They're not going to go quietly into the night. These people think man is woman and woman is man. How the heck do you break that sort of conditioning?