08-10-2020, 06:53 PM
Looking at mundane aspect of this, the history works we read are what historians culled from primary records and deemed worthy of being known by some given segment of the public.
A lot of things go on and barely, if at all, get mentioned.
Older events tend to have thin documentation when compared to more recent events. Thus, one tends to see the same version of the "story" for older events, and the uniformity of the telling increases as one goes back further in history.
Recent events get dropped because they are "current events" (technically not yet history) and because, ironically, there is so much documentation available about so many things in recent times. Someone makes the decision as to what makes the cut and what doesn't for any given work of history.
Anyone who has read in depth about events in recent history realizes how simplified the school texts are. I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is something to keep in mind. I am personally aware of aspects of the Second World War and the Cold War that are not common knowledge. Partially because of lots of reading and partially because of some direct, personal experience.
The effects of this filtering and editing contributes in some measure to the "unknown history" that we are not aware of.
I recall looking once at an encyclopedia that was published in a communist country. My knowledge of the local language was spotty, but good enough to understand this work claimed the Korean War was the result of American aggression against North Korea. So, toss in some deliberate lies in various works around the world, and, yeah, it is quite a stew, not all of which is digestible.
Cheers
A lot of things go on and barely, if at all, get mentioned.
Older events tend to have thin documentation when compared to more recent events. Thus, one tends to see the same version of the "story" for older events, and the uniformity of the telling increases as one goes back further in history.
Recent events get dropped because they are "current events" (technically not yet history) and because, ironically, there is so much documentation available about so many things in recent times. Someone makes the decision as to what makes the cut and what doesn't for any given work of history.
Anyone who has read in depth about events in recent history realizes how simplified the school texts are. I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is something to keep in mind. I am personally aware of aspects of the Second World War and the Cold War that are not common knowledge. Partially because of lots of reading and partially because of some direct, personal experience.
The effects of this filtering and editing contributes in some measure to the "unknown history" that we are not aware of.
I recall looking once at an encyclopedia that was published in a communist country. My knowledge of the local language was spotty, but good enough to understand this work claimed the Korean War was the result of American aggression against North Korea. So, toss in some deliberate lies in various works around the world, and, yeah, it is quite a stew, not all of which is digestible.
Cheers
![[Image: 14sigsepia.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/9yxWwxj/14sigsepia.jpg)
Location: The lost world, Elsewhen