History and the Truth

[DossarLX ODI]

History, from what I have learned, is a record of events that happened in the past. However, some of the information obtained from the sources back in the time periods can be unreliable. What if the person who witnessed what really happened wanted to give his or her perspective on what the situation was? What if he or she wanted people to believe a tragic event was just a nonsensical excuse to try and get revenge?

I usually thought about that when I studied about Medieval times. For example, people back in the time period recorded what the King Edwards of England had done in their rule of the country. Some Kings were regarded worse than others, but when historians researched about the kings, it seemed that some kings were not what they were actually said to be.

I studied about the Rwandan Genocide, and many sources indicated that the Bahutu were the mass murderers, but the RPF on another source indicated that the RPF members killed more people:

"After more than 14 years of systematic disinformation about Rwanda there exists a collective ignorance about what really happened in Rwanda and who is responsible. The so-called 'Rwanda Genocide' is one of the most widely misunderstood events in contemporary history, and not because the evidence is lacking or because the truth is obscured by butchery."

"Within Rwanda, legislation prevents anyone from questioning the official historical record."

"The real story seems to be that the RPF were the killers to a far greater extent, the majority of the victims were Hutus, and the numbers of dead during those 100 days were far less. The final insult to truth comes in the upside-down assertion that the RPF 'stopped the genocide by winning the war.' Also, the RPF typically killed everyone in its path: Major General Paul Kagame did not trust any Tutsis who stayed in Rwanda after pogroms that created the Tutsi exile community prior to the Habyarimana government (1973-1994) and Tutsis were also targeted by the RPF."

These quotes were obtained from the website: http://circleof13.blogspot.com/2009/...e-and-its.html

The point isn't whether or not the Hutus or the RPF killed more than the other, but that people have different views on past events. However, this was a relatively recent event which took place in 1994, lasting about 100 days, so sources such as magazines and periodicals can probably be more reliable than those of much earlier time periods.

Another interesting thought I have come up with is that some people probably don't want to reveal the reality of a situation. In history class, I watched a scene of a group of college students that joined the military in the time of the World Wars that had their very first trip at a trench/battlefield.

However, before these college students made a decision that changed their lives, their professor had convinced them to join the military. The professor stated that there would be very few losses, and nothing to worry about. However, in the end of the World Wars, millions of people were killed. The professor failed to mention that there would be massive killings, and that even close friends of yours can die or be severely injured.

Did the professor purposely remove the reality of war from his speech so the college students didn't become frightened?

I also watched a National Geographic video on Global Warming as well. This page has some of the facts mentioned in the documentary:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...warming_2.html

"Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface."

The video explained how daily activities poured gases that become trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. However, there was one factor I didn't catch in the video. You know how driving a car releases gases to the air surrounding you? Well, population was not mentioned in the video at all. If more people come to the United States, then chances are highly likely that more harmful gases will be released that will cause glaciers and icebergs to melt and cause rising in sea levels.

Let's say a country has a population of 5 million. If 4 million people leave, 1 million people will be left (obviously). Considering there's less people in the area, there's going to be less energy used for daily necessities. It just seems like common sense, but do the directors of the film purposely leave that fact out, or do they not want people to know too much about global warming?

SUMMARY:

The main point of my post is that sometimes, people may alter the actual truth to "brainwash" people. Do you think that telling people less is necessary? Do you think that some information should be revealed earlier than what is usually expected at a certain age? (Discussions with parents about dating and sexual acts can be an example) Do you think that most sources can be reliable?

[TinMan46]

The less people know, the better. People in today's society just can't handle knowledge

[DossarLX ODI]

Originally Posted by TinMan46

The less people know, the better. People in today's society just can't handle knowledge

While I do have to agree that some things are best left unknown, many other facts should be revealed.

However, the truth can lead to panic all over a certain country, or even worldwide. Although in cases like that the situation is mainly serious, people that absorb the facts should realise that they're being told something that they didn't know about before and should try to interpret it, although many start to panic and not put as much effort into analyzing the situation.

http://st2007.trincoll.edu/~thyde2/rwanda_aftermath.htm

"the children are the leaders of the future, but with little education that future looks bleak."

Discussing current events can give the youth a better understanding of the outside world; while parents say that a situation is under control, it could possibly be a crisis.

Fear and panic can result from knowledge. Maybe revealing less information about certain subjects can calm down a group of people. However, I think that people should try to figure out a situation if they are told more in-depth information rather than try to ignore it or stress about it. Events like World War I are historical events that are reasonable to stress about, but today rumors such as the Swine Flu cause panic in some uneducated people (not trying to be offensive here) that don't know what is going on in the world around them.

From what I recall, there have been little reported deaths in the United States from the Swine Flu. More people die from the regular flu, so why is Swine Flu such as big deal? Why aren't people focusing on something more important such as HIV and AIDs? Of course death is seen as a tragedy, but you can't fix everything.

Everyone has their own opinions and feelings about certain things. Leaving people with less information only makes them contribute less, in my opinion. If more people are taught more in certain important subjects such as current events, I think some people will try to help in the situation.

[devonin]

While this is an interesting discussion topic, I think your thread title bears absolutely no resemblance to what you're actually talking about.

This thread -appears- to be about government and media censorship of current events with far-reaching political consequences, and not about history at all.

[dsliscoo]

I thought you were going somewhere else with this as well...

uhm in regards to your views of history(modern and before) the victors are usually the ones that write the books. Discrepencies are likely to happen and even do happen to a point where everything is blurred and spinned way too much.

In regards to Rwanda... uhm I dont know everything about it, but from what I understand there isnt the open genocide that it was. Although there is still a major hate cycle of everyone there. People who cant forgive the past for whatever reason will hinder society...

As for what I think your arguing about. Modernly there is alot covered up. Thats the business of the CIA and most intelligence agencies across the world. People cant be controlled if they know, or rather can be controlled if they dont. Printing false information has also been used to control people. Alot of things(ALOT) are not revealed fully because they wouldnt cause the right reaction if they were. Gulf of Tonkin which motivated the crowds to back up a war in vietnam. Sinking of the USS Maine started the fight between the US and Spain in 1898. Pearl Harbor gave unrevokable support to the Allies in WWII. Even 9/11.. Its hard to tell how much of these have been covered up, but if you notice the farther back you go the more truth about the original incident shows up.

Now thats just the way to motivate a war prosperous economy. Looking at other cultures and countries there has been countless possible propoganda generating incidents dating as far back as words could be written. Every war has it. WWII, WWI,, the countless battles before and the many to come. Religioin has it. Pretty sure the Crusades were founded on something that was used to spread the desire to bring about change. Spanish Inquisition, Witch trials, any country you could name that has had a king. Everything is distorted.

Hell we even probably distort truths to our own friends to make us seem better..

[DossarLX ODI]

Originally Posted by dsliscoo

People who cant forgive the past for whatever reason will hinder society...

I have to agree with this. I've seen thoughts about history being a "story of the past", and according to this idea, people may give their own perspective on a certain situation. The Hutus in the Rwandan Genocide are what most people think are the mass killers, but the RPF also killed a large number of people as well.

While friends can be trusted, you probably won't tell them information that you don't want to reveal (e.g. alternate accounts) because that might change their views about you which results in distrust and hate. Many people in the world are close-minded and lock one idea, which is that an event really is bad or not, whether or not the situation was actually not what it seemed to be.

People in Africa struggle to survive today, and face extreme poverty. Most children in Rwanda don't go to school today, for example. Children are the leaders of the future; if they don't learn from mistakes made in the country earlier such as the Genocide, the children won't think about the severe consequences such an event could make.

The world should try to help each other, but because people can't forgive others because of events that happened in the past, there are nuclear weapons that are attempting to be created to fight against a certain nation.

Do the people that engage in nuclear warfare also consider in mind the environmental impact of these nuclear weapons? I think that people go with their own impressions and don't concentrate enough about the results of their actions.

[devonin]

Do the people that engage in nuclear warfare also consider in mind the environmental impact of these nuclear weapons? I think that people go with their own impressions and don't concentrate enough about the results of their actions.

The only country in the history of the world that has ever engaged in nuclear warfare is the United States. They didn't appreciate at the time, just how far-reaching the potential consequences could be, because they were too busy worrying about whether they might actually burn out the atmosphere and end the world.

The Hutus in the Rwandan Genocide are what most people think are the mass killers, but the RPF also killed a large number of people as well.

The RPF invaded Hutu-controlled Rwanda in 1990 with support from Uganda. Numerically, an invading force of about 25000 invaded a country with a military numbering about 250000 (That's 275,000 TOTAL people) I don't have any counts of casualties in the actual war portion of the war, but considering that there were only 25,000 attacking soldiers, I expect the death-count to be -maybe- 10,000 combined on both sides over 3 years of conflict.

Compare this to the purported death toll of 800,000-1,000,000 people during the "Rwandan Genocide" carried out by the Hutus against the Tutsis. It's suspected close to 500,000 of them were killed in only 100 days.

I'm not even sure these death counts are relateable let alone comperable.

Originally Posted by dsliscoo

Gulf of Tonkin which motivated the crowds to back up a war in vietnam. Sinking of the USS Maine started the fight between the US and Spain in 1898. Pearl Harbor gave unrevokable support to the Allies in WWII. Even 9/11.. Its hard to tell how much of these have been covered up, but if you notice the farther back you go the more truth about the original incident shows up.

While the sinking of the Maine is one of my more favourite historical "cover-up conspiracy theories" you'll note that all of these things being traced back to American involvement to "trick" people are just that, conspiracy theories. By their nature, there's no proof to support them, just a lot of circumstantial evidence that someone already looking to believe it might be convinced was enough to draw the conclusion.

[8Shade8]

Wow, your summary was completely off from what I thought you were going on about. I know from personal experience that information is purposely withheld from civilians by the government. This would be called a classification. Here is a wiki link to explain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information

The main reasons for having this kind of control of information is so that the people do not panic. The government is very uptight about information about people and events. For instance, if Obama was to do something slightly illegal it would be covered up in a heartbeat and everything that could be done to keep it from being released to the media, would. Why? Because he is our leader. Because he is the figurehead of our country, and he is only human.

Now what you are doing in your summary is theorizing conspiracy theories. This can be a lot of fun sometimes, however, knowing the truth about something requires a lot of research. One of the best ways to discover the truth in history is comparing and contrasting studies that others have done. If something is found to be true by multiple sources, than it is likely to have happened. Also, if only one person is claiming something about a particular event or person, you must analyze that person's personal feelings toward the said event or person to establish an understanding the truthfulness and accuracy of the information. Sources are only reliable based on the number of times they have reported and researched a specific field, their personal feelings towards the field and their placement and access in relevance to the obtainable information about the field.

[Sephiroth28]

The truth is covered for the fact that the world would be a mess if some information was leaked. Just think about events like Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. Those events made huge uproars in society that made people wuestion government. If certain things were released to the public than even greater problems would surface.

[devonin]

But in a "free" society with democratically elected leaders answerable to the people, there's a bit of an issue with just trusting that the government will only hide things that would be dangerous to the society to be learned, and not also hide things that would make them get kicked out of office.

[dsliscoo]

Originally Posted by devonin

While the sinking of the Maine is one of my more favourite historical "cover-up conspiracy theories" you'll note that all of these things being traced back to American involvement to "trick" people are just that, conspiracy theories. By their nature, there's no proof to support them, just a lot of circumstantial evidence that someone already looking to believe it might be convinced was enough to draw the conclusion.

Circumstantial evidence along with motive and capability can prove possibility which is almost enough to hang a court case. I dont really want to support any of those theories, because alot of them have purposes that are alot deeper then controlling masses. Although It is right to question anything any government does, not just the events that trigger huge responses.

[devonin]

Circumstantial evidence along with motive and capability can prove possibility which is almost enough to hang a court case.

Believe me, I did fairly in-depth research into this one for a proposed paper I was going to write for an American History class in university. There was and is not nearly enough evidence to come close to enough to support a court case. The most telling evidence that the americans either knew the ship was going to be attacked, or attacked it themselves was that at the time of its sinking, the entire crew of the ship was african-american (Which in 1890s US tells you something potentially significant) but that doesn't come close to being convictable evidence by any standard.

[Cavernio]

This discussion, on a meta-level, is easily tied into the, IMO, silly discussion with the title 1+1=does not compute. Our understanding of fact and truth is always swayed, and is also never really true because we define things differently. 2 highly intelligent people can have completely different views about an incident because of how they perceive things. Even the scope at which you look at something is up to question. For instance, you can discuss economics through country-wide policies and imports and exports, or you can talk about individual companies which provide those exports and who sell the imports, and both can lead to understanding of global economy.

I don't think that telling people less is generally necessary. I think that everyone should think about where each piece of information they hear is from. All sources are always suspect, but every source is information, even or especially if they are lying, because then you may be able to discern why they're lying which is more information.
As far as people knowing too much and getting panicked, I believe, for no reason besides this is what I think I'd feel, if we were to know more about everything, we'd simply get used to the fact that we're not secure. But then again, I'd also be totally cool if we could all read minds too, and from what I hear, most people would be against that, so I'm pretty sure I'm on one-side of the spectrum here. I don't care that people track information about me, even personal information, as long as they're not gonna blackmail me with it or something. For instance, as long as spyware doesn't slow down my computer, I really don't care that it's there, because it's just gonna be amalgamated into general data anyways. They're not stalking me.

We don't get news presses about mundane things though, and that's fine. Information which government has should be made to the public if they look for it, but it's not necessary to announce everything.

Aside: If you actually study history, you're likely going to have to take a class about your topic...my history of psychology class was basically exploring all the issues you brought forward but using psychology examples. I learned very little fact and date in that class, but I think I'm the wiser for it. personally, I think history is a very, very complicated subject. In order to be a good historian, you basically have to use all the tools that every other social science uses and then piece something together. Plus you have the added thing about it all being in the past.

[Necros140606]

what about alteration of recent past reality? this is something my country has been experiencing in the last decades, and it is bothering me as it's an increasing trend. here's an example: in the early 90s there was a huge scandal about corrupt politicians, and many of them got condemned. however, there is a still active law that prevents people belonging to the parliament from being arrested and put to jail, thus nothing happens and everyone can keep doing their business (as long as they're re-elected, and they are) until the judgement expires. even those who did went to jail are now back in the political circus. after a dozen years, everyone is proclamed innocent (even though they were condemned but judgement expired, or got released for "lack of proof") and the government is trying to reduce the power of the judges, along with a law, witnessed by our current premier silvio berlusconi, which grants total immunity to the 4 maximum powers of the state, including president of council and president of the republic.

after everything that has done, berlusconi, who owns half of the media vectors in italy and controls the other half though government, has started a counter-information campaign that has effectively changed the perception of the past, only 15 years ago, overwhelming documented data and everyone who dares to mention it. judges are accused of "communism" and corrupt politicians have become "innocent victims". revisionism has also been applied towards fascism, giving the measure to what extent the past can be altered.

past can be changed, and can be changed very easily. i'm positive present can be altered as well, especially in dictatorian-oriented governments.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Necros140606

what about alteration of recent past reality? this is something my country has been experiencing in the last decades, and it is bothering me as it's an increasing trend. here's an example: in the early 90s there was a huge scandal about corrupt politicians, and many of them got condemned. however, there is a still active law that prevents people belonging to the parliament from being arrested and put to jail, thus nothing happens and everyone can keep doing their business (as long as they're re-elected, and they are) until the judgement expires. even those who did went to jail are now back in the political circus. after a dozen years, everyone is proclamed innocent (even though they were condemned but judgement expired, or got released for "lack of proof") and the government is trying to reduce the power of the judges, along with a law, witnessed by our current premier silvio berlusconi, which grants total immunity to the 4 maximum powers of the state, including president of council and president of the republic.

after everything that has done, berlusconi, who owns half of the media vectors in italy and controls the other half though government, has started a counter-information campaign that has effectively changed the perception of the past, only 15 years ago, overwhelming documented data and everyone who dares to mention it. judges are accused of "communism" and corrupt politicians have become "innocent victims". revisionism has also been applied towards fascism, giving the measure to what extent the past can be altered.

past can be changed, and can be changed very easily. i'm positive present can be altered as well, especially in dictatorian-oriented governments.

And this is why I don't want to live in China, and Italy now I suppose too.

[devonin]

past can be changed, and can be changed very easily.

And this kind of logic is what usually leads people to conclusions like "So History is worthless, or not worth studying" -because- it can be changed via revisionism so easily. Whereas I would say that this makes the study of history -more- important, because it's only by the careful scrutiny of archaeological, sociological, paleontological, and historical evidence can we actually try to get past the revisionism and victor-writing and get at what actually happened.

[Necros140606]

Originally Posted by devonin

And this kind of logic is what usually leads people to conclusions like "So History is worthless, or not worth studying" -because- it can be changed via revisionism so easily. Whereas I would say that this makes the study of history -more- important, because it's only by the careful scrutiny of archaeological, sociological, paleontological, and historical evidence can we actually try to get past the revisionism and victor-writing and get at what actually happened.

nothing in my post points toward that position. i myself believe that the only counterstrike against revisionism is the information provided by independent/reliable sources. as much as we cannot always be completely certain of what we know about the recent past, even less about ancient past, meticolous documentation is fundamental and unreplaceable to build one's knowledge and perception of the world.

[devonin]

nothing in my post points toward that position.

I never said it did. YOu're doing revisionism.

[Necros140606]

nice example of revisionism haha

i was just elaborating a bit further afer what you said

[dsliscoo]

Originally Posted by devonin

Believe me, I did fairly in-depth research into this one for a proposed paper I was going to write for an American History class in university. There was and is not nearly enough evidence to come close to enough to support a court case. The most telling evidence that the americans either knew the ship was going to be attacked, or attacked it themselves was that at the time of its sinking, the entire crew of the ship was african-american (Which in 1890s US tells you something potentially significant) but that doesn't come close to being convictable evidence by any standard.

They were all african american? wow. Not to drag this out too much further but I just wikipediad the USS Maine. I guess there is a theory that it wasnt even attacked by anyone and it was coal oxidizing and spontaneously combusting that caused it. Looking at everything, I would say its hard to tell what actually happened at all one way or another, at least according to the Wiki on it. If I had been around I would have probably thought it was the spanish too lol. I guess things would become increasingly harder and harder to conjure up with the rising media coverage of everything. unless you could make up fake people, alter witness states/video footage, or do something that just wouldn't be seen by anybody.

To Necros as a curiosity, what type of scandals were they? I am trying to gauge how evil italy is