Is it plausible to believe that history is a lie?

If it is not ourselves that visually recall events, then we are only made aware of things that occur by a storyteller, who has either a personal experience of or, "knows someone" who passed on their views of it.
As time goes by, the observer is no more and all that is left is the tale - though the passing of time it can be exaggerated, embellished or re-vamped to cater for the audience it is serving.
For instance, the plays of William Shakespeare were acted out in a language of olde- and though they may have been relevant and significant and true to the mood and events of the day for 'modern day' appreciation - they are 'edited' to suit, is that not the same with any descriptive tale of our past? – His Story indeed
eace:

 

The last election proves the point. Doomed to repeat ,that is.

 

It’s difficult to believe because we’re all so used to the idea that paleo-indians followed the roaming herds of mammoths and bison across the land bridge between asia and north america around 20,000 years ago; but in reality the techniques they used to survive were just as possible along the atlantic coast, hunting seals and fish in small boats, and using fat and blubber as a source of fuel and light :2thumbsup:


Hotwater

 

I don't doubt it because I am used to the idea of a Bering land bridge. I doubt it because the theory of Solutrean migration states that an ice crossing was made possible by the use of "Eskimo techniques". My point is that Eskimo techniques work for Eskimos in large part because of Eskimo physiology. Adaptations that come from long arctic exposure, and there is no evidence in that period for seaworthy watercraft.

At any rate it is a controversial theory. We have more evidence of technology emerging independently in many areas at once. It is theorized that agriculture developed independently in 8 different parts of the world.

 

The clovis artifacts have such an uncanny resemblance to the solutreans one could almost believe in the 100th monkey phenomena


Hotwater

 

There is of course the fact that similar materials would tend to fracture in the same way, talking about flint tools here. There may be just so many configurations you can nap in stone. So may be not so much a phenomenal coincidence as an inevitable one.

 

90 plus percent of history comes in the form of some organized corporation who only have a duty to the shareholders to report history as they say it is. Just as any school, which all schools are corporations, have a duty to the shareholders..not the people...

 

I honestly believe much of history is just part of a world dream which many have chosen to collectively belief in, not that its not true, but theres so much of history apart from what is taught and focused upon that is simply lost, or only a few people know it, or in some cases many know it, but its just not what is officially taught (magical history for example), history is always biased, so much must be omitted, the people who make the books always have an agenda, theres so much there, no one can possibly begin to really know and I believe a lot which we discount as fantasy, is just perhaps what is repeated discovered but never gets officially recognized, I think you are not doomed to repeat the past just because you don't know what it is, in fact I think in some cases it may save you. I believe most of what is taught probably did happen, but I believe that is probably only 5% of the whole story and much is left out. It makes people so sad, and its just like, why? At a certain point you do have to forget the past, not stupidly, not just to do the same things over, but for the precise purpose of doing something different, think of it this way, if you always start from the same place, believing all taught history is true, taking it all into account, then most likely, you are going to pretty much do the same thing

whereas if you start from a different point, you'll percieve another aspect as your foundation and so you may be inspired to do something very different which could have great effects which no one would have otherwise thought of

if no one takes the risk, we'll never get anywhere but along our predictable tracks

i think whats important is just having a conscience, not necessarily derived from historical events which no one can prove anymore, but just from ones own life, be a good person, respect all people, love everything, don't be a fascist!

in my opinion mythology holds just as much wisdom as history, and is more applicable and creative, especially when you start seeing the connections of stories through different peoples and lands, thats really interesting and timeless, and useful.

history as taught in my opinion, is just a long list of how people have failed to do this.

 

Just live and let live.

 

Yep. The vikings did hundreds of years before him, and said fuck this cold noise, we have cold shit at home.

 

History is written by the 'victors'.
Thus the holocaust fabricated by the yanks and britts to favour the creation of israel (Rothshield financed the war for England), the influence of th ejews in the US is a clear and present danger!

The first people coming to the (eastern) shores of this continent where portugeese sealers during th elast ice age, befor eberingia was ice and water free for peple to pass over.
Thus the claiim of the indians THEY where the first inhabitants are wrong, the truth is coverd up by gov and media for obviouse reasons.

 

One can believe whatever one chooses to believe. History is a story, it amuses me. I can only learn from my self. I write my own story of my self. And all history is something part of me that is being reflected unto my self. Revealed my self unto my self. And just like history, this post is a lie. Because man ,,,,,, knows no one tongue upon which he agrees wholeheartedly.

 

History is basically Retro-Journalism, so there is gonna be a bias or just an out-right lie depending on who's telling the story (american retelling of history is filled with this, i'm sure it's the same all over the world). So to the OP, yes and no. Does your history teacher want you to the know what they tell you, or come to plausible conclusions based on the contextual landscape.

Btw this is so relevant to this topic it isn't even funny, really it isn't...check it out
Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

 

I trust wikipedia more than I trust a goddamn public school, that's for sure!
That goes for history too.

 

Modern Druids do not attempt to recreate the past in historically unobtainable detail, they choose to lie in a stream of a spiritual tradition, that like the great Mother Nature herself, is always pouring forth its abundance.

paraphrased, Druid Magic: the practice of Celtic Wisdom

 

Hmmm.. Interesting question. History is written by the victors, most of the time, so I guess we shouldn't believe everything that history books claim is true. Personal history, my own, Robert Plant's or whoever's, is another matter altogether; that kind of history is always "honest"... Unless the person decides to fake it, though sooner or later, the things that are untrue will be discovered.

 

It's hard enough to know what to believe about the present. The news that we get is a small, selective sample of the gazillions of happenings going on around the planet. It's a function of what the gatekeepers and news gatherers thing is important, and it's shaded or sometimes even fabricated by reporters to suit their own biases. Compare Fox, CNN, and MSNBC in presenting "fair and balanced" coverage. When we're dealing with history, the problem is compounded by the limitations of available evidence. In the absence of the original manuscripts, for example, how much (if any) of the New testament is true? Did Jesus even exist? Did the Buddha? Did Socrates? But I don't think it's plausible to believe it's all a lie. Some things are easier to document than others, and it's possible to adopt methods that help to control biases. "Lie" connotes deliberate falsehood. We can't escape making judgments about who and what to believe, but we can make an effort to get the best available evidence from a wide variety of sources.

 

it is not from lack of study that history is repeated, but from its failure to be taught or even recorded honestly.

 

I couldn't agree that "all' of history is a lie -- or even "most" of it.

The "written by the victors" concept certainly has a huge amount of credibility. Basic history may not be as skewed, exaggerated or embellished as the details.

In my lifetime I have witnessed certain events and movements that have since become included in history lessons at least up to the high school level. Unless my memory is completely flawed, “historical” accounts of some such events have now been written (or re-written) to reflect a supposed ideal rather than being factual -- biographical content seems the most embellished.

Are portions of written history less then factual? Most certainly – as has been proven many times.

 

granted it would be just as difficult to 100% lie as it would to be 100% honest, but the vested interests in how history is written, are NOT on the side of honesty and never have been. of course this doesn't mean everything called history is some sort of cover up or any sort of monolithic conspiracy to serve any SINGE interest. but it DOES mean, that anything not researched thoroughly by one's self, can never be entirely trusted.

(and if one has neither the time nor interest in doing so, if one has any other interest at all, that doing so would unwelcomely rob the time from, it IS by far "best taken, with a very large grain of salt")