- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 46,956
- Reaction score
- 22,884
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
There is a remarkably insightful quotation from George Orwell in 1984:
Here's how I interpret it largely:
Those who control the present controlling the past means, those who control the present can control propaganda and education. Think about China wiping things like the Tiananmen Square massacre from history in China.
History can be re-invented. Look at Putin's version of reality about the Ukraine war now: the west installed Nazis to rule Ukraine, developing bio-weapons, planning to use them in a war to destroy Russia, but Putin heroically defended Russia.
China has re-invented Mao's history as something of a maniac, history's greatest killer killing more than Hitler and Stalin combined reportedly, trying to destroy China's culture, into a positive and heroic story.
Right now in the US, we're having a controversy about what history to teach, an issue being called "CRT", with our politics and laws playing a growing role.
Wars, genocides, heroes and villains, history can be greatly altered by "the present". We're a bit less sensitive to this in the west with traditions of 'truth and accuracy', but the point is closer to the tyranny of 1984 or a China how the present can control the past.
The second part of the quote means that people's understanding of history is massive in the policies they'll support for the future. What lessons are learned.
So it's one thing if people have an accurate view of history and learn lessons they apply to policies - another famous saying, from Santanaya about 'those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it'.
But when that history is malleable, is fiction created by propagandists, people can be whipped up to support different policies that change what happens.
The thread title is asking a question showing that either of those options is possible, or others, and are greatly affected by what propaganda wins, what history people learn.
Were the 1950's filled with the US behaving monstrously, destroying democracies and installing tyrants in order to suppress countries for our benefit? Or was the US a champion of freedom against forces of tyranny?
Was Ronald Reagan a revolution for plutocracy to take hold of the US, weakening our democracy, or was he a liberating force ushering in an era of free markets increasing freedom and prosperity?
We're seeing massively different views in the US; trump supporters live in a different reality than Democrats. These differences apply to how people would view history as well, in many case.
People like to think 'history is history', but that's only some history that's not 'partisan' or 'divided'. The moment history touches a 'partisan' topic, it can be far from agreed on.
Looking for an example that's current enough to have partisan issues but still history, the Vietnam war can range from 'leftist traitors against our side', to 'a misguided and evil mass murder of millions of Vietnamese people trying to be free of foreign control'. Nevermind the ever-popular 'who cares' version.
What lessons should be drawn? About the role of domestic protest? About hubris? About 'losing a war because of liberals tying the hands of the military'? And so on. What the view of the history is, and the lessons from it, can radical shirt opinions on future issues.
When this is better appreciated, it helps people to cherish and want to protect the truth all the more, recognizing how critical it is to preventing tyranny.
“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”
Here's how I interpret it largely:
Those who control the present controlling the past means, those who control the present can control propaganda and education. Think about China wiping things like the Tiananmen Square massacre from history in China.
History can be re-invented. Look at Putin's version of reality about the Ukraine war now: the west installed Nazis to rule Ukraine, developing bio-weapons, planning to use them in a war to destroy Russia, but Putin heroically defended Russia.
China has re-invented Mao's history as something of a maniac, history's greatest killer killing more than Hitler and Stalin combined reportedly, trying to destroy China's culture, into a positive and heroic story.
Right now in the US, we're having a controversy about what history to teach, an issue being called "CRT", with our politics and laws playing a growing role.
Wars, genocides, heroes and villains, history can be greatly altered by "the present". We're a bit less sensitive to this in the west with traditions of 'truth and accuracy', but the point is closer to the tyranny of 1984 or a China how the present can control the past.
The second part of the quote means that people's understanding of history is massive in the policies they'll support for the future. What lessons are learned.
So it's one thing if people have an accurate view of history and learn lessons they apply to policies - another famous saying, from Santanaya about 'those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it'.
But when that history is malleable, is fiction created by propagandists, people can be whipped up to support different policies that change what happens.
The thread title is asking a question showing that either of those options is possible, or others, and are greatly affected by what propaganda wins, what history people learn.
Were the 1950's filled with the US behaving monstrously, destroying democracies and installing tyrants in order to suppress countries for our benefit? Or was the US a champion of freedom against forces of tyranny?
Was Ronald Reagan a revolution for plutocracy to take hold of the US, weakening our democracy, or was he a liberating force ushering in an era of free markets increasing freedom and prosperity?
We're seeing massively different views in the US; trump supporters live in a different reality than Democrats. These differences apply to how people would view history as well, in many case.
People like to think 'history is history', but that's only some history that's not 'partisan' or 'divided'. The moment history touches a 'partisan' topic, it can be far from agreed on.
Looking for an example that's current enough to have partisan issues but still history, the Vietnam war can range from 'leftist traitors against our side', to 'a misguided and evil mass murder of millions of Vietnamese people trying to be free of foreign control'. Nevermind the ever-popular 'who cares' version.
What lessons should be drawn? About the role of domestic protest? About hubris? About 'losing a war because of liberals tying the hands of the military'? And so on. What the view of the history is, and the lessons from it, can radical shirt opinions on future issues.
When this is better appreciated, it helps people to cherish and want to protect the truth all the more, recognizing how critical it is to preventing tyranny.