Yes, I listened a really long podcast about it and I know it made total sense and listed a lot of evidence, but as always, I can’t recall anything but the point that truly the saying is wrong. Do you have an example?
There’s plenty of examples, but possibly the most interesting one is China.
China, historically, fanatically wrote about their history, and unfortunately for them, particularly around the time prior to the Ming Dynasty, most of this was writing about them having their arses repeatedly handed to them by Mongol armies.
For the US, plenty of the history surrounding their civil war was, at least for a while, written by supporters of the Confederacy, which is why to this day there’s still so many people pushing the “it was about states rights!” thing.
Sticking to the US, let’s be real, despite many Americans claiming otherwise, the US lost their war with the British Empire and their allied natives in 1812, yet the US often refers to it as being a draw, or even (though more rarely) an American win.
England under Cromwell invading Ireland was written about heavily on both sides, and England isn’t exactly presented as being the good side.
It’s probably more accurate to say History is most consistently written by the most literate, but that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
Yup. And while this is obviously easier to do when you’re the winner, it’s not a requirement.
Most of the records of the Mongols outclassing China over such a long period of time comes from Chinese writings, for example.
People love believing blanket, black and white statements. History is written by the victors, nobody else, I know this because it’s a Churchill quote, it has to be true!
If history was written exclusively by the victors, the Khans would be considered one of the greatest empires of all time. However, the Mongolians didn’t really have a pronounced aristocracy class that focused on arts/writing, and so most of our records regarding their conquests are written by Chinese and European scholars, a.k.a. the losers.
But the Mongols willingly assimilated into Chinese culture for ease of administration, becoming the Yuan Dynasty. So a lot of the ‘Chinese’ sources were written by people of Mongol ancestry, or people who worked for them.
Not sure this is a great example for your point, given that in between then and now Europe conquered most of the world. I don’t think it’d be hard to argue that in the long term they were the “victors” and as such their great opponents and fears became The Enemy in the history books.
This only really works as a counter-point if you interpret it overly literally as only referring to the winners of a particular conflict, whereas in my experience at least, this isn’t what most people repeating the sentiment actually mean. Usually it’s something more akin to “history is often written and taught in a way that furthers the goals of the current hegemon,” that’s just not quite as snappy.
I’m guessing the issue that makes people talk past each other when talking about this idea is that it’s most famously used in reference to World War II where “winner of the conflict” and “leader of the global order” were about as close to the same thing as they have ever been.
Modern sensibilities see them as the good guys, but for most of colonial history they were painted as the bad guys. Kids played cowboys and Indians the same way they played cops and robbers.
Native American oral history portrays some initial contact and treaties as mutually amicable, the Treaty of Niagara for example, and there’s a common sentiment that returning to original treaties could be a good thing. Also common knowledge now but they weren’t just a group of people but many nations. The “wise native” trope and the notion they were like peaceful hippies who lived easy lives with nature are arguably positive racist stereotypes.
The westward expansion and “free real estate” project of settlement is where things turned, and the new capitalist economic order taking hold. It wasn’t all a violent takeover either, there were very mundane layers of land leasing and real estate issues happening as well.
Strangely you have misunderstood my comment. It was clearly meant about the saying that history is written by the winners. There is no saying that winners are the good guys.
Even more strangely you are not the only one. I can only surmise that people are really itching to get offended by something. Or do you think it’s something else?
Strangely you have misunderstood my comment. It was clearly meant about the saying that history is written by the winners. There is no saying that winners are the good guys.
Even more strangely you are not the only one. I can only surmise that people are really itching to get offended by something. Or do you think it’s something else?
Yes, I listened a really long podcast about it and I know it made total sense and listed a lot of evidence, but as always, I can’t recall anything but the point that truly the saying is wrong. Do you have an example?
There’s plenty of examples, but possibly the most interesting one is China.
China, historically, fanatically wrote about their history, and unfortunately for them, particularly around the time prior to the Ming Dynasty, most of this was writing about them having their arses repeatedly handed to them by Mongol armies.
For the US, plenty of the history surrounding their civil war was, at least for a while, written by supporters of the Confederacy, which is why to this day there’s still so many people pushing the “it was about states rights!” thing.
Sticking to the US, let’s be real, despite many Americans claiming otherwise, the US lost their war with the British Empire and their allied natives in 1812, yet the US often refers to it as being a draw, or even (though more rarely) an American win.
England under Cromwell invading Ireland was written about heavily on both sides, and England isn’t exactly presented as being the good side.
It’s probably more accurate to say History is most consistently written by the most literate, but that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
History is written by people who write it down (and then get it successfully accepted/disseminated to a certain degree).
Yup. And while this is obviously easier to do when you’re the winner, it’s not a requirement.
Most of the records of the Mongols outclassing China over such a long period of time comes from Chinese writings, for example.
People love believing blanket, black and white statements. History is written by the victors, nobody else, I know this because it’s a Churchill quote, it has to be true!
If history was written exclusively by the victors, the Khans would be considered one of the greatest empires of all time. However, the Mongolians didn’t really have a pronounced aristocracy class that focused on arts/writing, and so most of our records regarding their conquests are written by Chinese and European scholars, a.k.a. the losers.
That’s a huge one, thanks
But the Mongols willingly assimilated into Chinese culture for ease of administration, becoming the Yuan Dynasty. So a lot of the ‘Chinese’ sources were written by people of Mongol ancestry, or people who worked for them.
Not sure this is a great example for your point, given that in between then and now Europe conquered most of the world. I don’t think it’d be hard to argue that in the long term they were the “victors” and as such their great opponents and fears became The Enemy in the history books.
This only really works as a counter-point if you interpret it overly literally as only referring to the winners of a particular conflict, whereas in my experience at least, this isn’t what most people repeating the sentiment actually mean. Usually it’s something more akin to “history is often written and taught in a way that furthers the goals of the current hegemon,” that’s just not quite as snappy.
I’m guessing the issue that makes people talk past each other when talking about this idea is that it’s most famously used in reference to World War II where “winner of the conflict” and “leader of the global order” were about as close to the same thing as they have ever been.
The many many cultures who were just living life, only to be wiped out by colonists. Are they the good guys?
Can you reword that?
The Native Americans are generally considered “the good guys” and clearly lost.
Modern sensibilities see them as the good guys, but for most of colonial history they were painted as the bad guys. Kids played cowboys and Indians the same way they played cops and robbers.
And of course we now know that cops are worse than robbers and so the wheel of progress keeps turning!
Native American oral history portrays some initial contact and treaties as mutually amicable, the Treaty of Niagara for example, and there’s a common sentiment that returning to original treaties could be a good thing. Also common knowledge now but they weren’t just a group of people but many nations. The “wise native” trope and the notion they were like peaceful hippies who lived easy lives with nature are arguably positive racist stereotypes.
The westward expansion and “free real estate” project of settlement is where things turned, and the new capitalist economic order taking hold. It wasn’t all a violent takeover either, there were very mundane layers of land leasing and real estate issues happening as well.
Strangely you have misunderstood my comment. It was clearly meant about the saying that history is written by the winners. There is no saying that winners are the good guys.
Even more strangely you are not the only one. I can only surmise that people are really itching to get offended by something. Or do you think it’s something else?
I find your comment offensive to people who are easily offended. Also, I think you’re sheeple. Do your own research. The media is lying to you.
Strangely you have misunderstood my comment. It was clearly meant about the saying that history is written by the winners. There is no saying that winners are the good guys.
Even more strangely you are not the only one. I can only surmise that people are really itching to get offended by something. Or do you think it’s something else?