Is it plausible to believe that history is a lie?

I'm sure you've all heard the saying that if you don't study history then you're going to repeat it
What if all of the history is a lie? Or at least most of it?
"History is written by the victors"
What if the victors are liars and want to control us by rewriting the history and telling us to learn from it?

 

This is how I feel about most religions. You should read the play, "1001" by Jason Grote. One of the primary themes is rewriting the narrative of a nation in order to change that nation.

 

There's usually two or more sides to a story so sometimes you have to look hard to find the side you prefer to believe. You have to decide for yourself if you prefer the lie or the truth. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept.

 

history, up until now has been going by pretty quick....

 

Yes while it's very true history is written by victors . It's also very true that there are two sides to every story , and that truth seems very different to the losers and oppressed .
Just like the old saying ,one mans terrorist , is another mans freedom fighter . The only difference is from which side of the issue you are coming from . So yes i think there are times when histories records are very biased and inaccurate .

 

The victors often are not 'liars' but they're certainly can be distortions and exaggerations of the truth. There is ALWAYS information/stories that are omitted and/or overlooked in the main text of history books because as others have mentioned it doesn't come from the oppressed and losers point of view. When it comes to war and stuff 'the losers' are often rebuilding, recovering and often dont want that part of history to be remembered.

Keep in mind too, that up until the last century, history was written by an extremely small population of educated elite which didn't even necessarily correspond with the common man's view of the world as 'winners'.

That being said I dont think history is written with intent to control future civilizations, I think you credit humans too much there. I think history is written to flex a countries strengths and ideas. Some civilizations can certainly cling on to ideas of the past tho.

 

His-story

^his answer is perfect

 

probably is

just don't do anything you believe to be evil and it'll all work out in the end

 

Depends which parts of it.

Christopher Columbus didn't discover America. The Holocaust did happen.

 

History is open to interpretation so you're certainly never going to get the full story.

 

History is always told in the present, it is living tissue. The past as a place or event, does not currently exist.

 

I believe the large events have happened, but the details are generally skewed a bit to what others want you to believe.

 

"History is an agreed upon set of lies" -Napoleon

Really though, history is about how you interpret it. Like it's true, Christopher Columbus didn't discover America, I mean aside from the fact how do you "discover" something that already exists with people living there, it's agreed historical fact now that the vikings were the first Europeans to reach North America.

However, Columbus will continue to go down as the discover because he was in fact the first person to get to North America and bring back news of the fact shit was over yonder in a fashion that made North America established fact to Europeans. Well that and the fact Italians in both North and South America flip the shit whenever anyone tries to take away from Columbus's name.

 

there's some thought that basque and celtic [irish or welsh, i forget?] fishermen may have landed from time to time way back when

appear to have been largely uninterested in the place though . . .

 

Well, they probably had the same problem as the Vikings, they landed in Newfoundland, you'd go back home and forget about the place too if you landed in Newfoundland

 

Its possible. I mean we now know about egypt using electricity and batterys. So they are holding some history that we need to answer some puzzle questions where sience and religion fail to do so.

 

Well stone tool technology developed by the solutreans in prehistoric europe is similar in some respects to the clovis point; which would make europeans among the earliest settlers in North america around 13,000 BC or 14,000 years before the Vikings


Hotwater

 

Wasn't he sailing from Spain? Are you thinking about Amerigo Vespuci?

 

Columbus was hired and funded by Isabella of Castile(Spain), but the man himself was very much Italian from the Republic of Genoa.

 

I am inclined to doubt an Atlantic ice crossing using "Eskimo techniques" as Eskimo techniques are for one physiological.

The people of the north have a highly evolved physiology that makes them well suited to life in the arctic: a compact build that conserves warmth, a faster metabolism, optimally distributed body fat, and special modifications to the circulatory system. They can consume an almost exclusively animal diet without suffering the effects of scurvy.

It seems more likely to me that innovations in technology can occur independently in many parts of the world.