Monday, March 1, 2010

Captured Thought: Historical Rumors

I watched a good episode of The Simpsons the other day. It was the one in which Lisa discovers that the man who founded their town, Jebodiah Springfield, was actually a murderous pirate and not the hero he was made out to be. She tries to convince the town about her findings, but everyone is so lost in the story of Springfield. So, in the end everyone still believes Jebodiah to be a hero despite the truth of him being a terrible person.
This made me realize that it is quite possible that fragments of history, that people hold on to and adore, could easily be a lie, covered up by the person/people recording it for the books. I know that most things in history can easily be proven just by all the artifacts left behind (Ex: Mayan civilization, the Civil War), but there are also things that could be made up, just historical rumors. Things like who first landed on the Americas and who first landed on the moon.
It might seem like this is not big deal because it does not change our current status, but it is. It means that everything that is supposed to be true and hold validity, could easily be dismissed as false just because of our ignorance.
Looking back, I notice that I have been thinking about things like this for a year or two. I would always ask myself, as I looked through a history book, "What if this stuff isn't true?" But I would ignore that question because I was convinced that, "Oh, it is in a history book, it must be true." But now I realize that things are not always as they seem.

2 comments:

  1. George,

    First off... I LOVE your introduction to this piece. Maybe it's just because I happen to love the Simpsons. (haven't seen this episode though)

    "This made me realize that it is quite possible that fragments of history, that people hold on to and adore, could easily be a lie, covered up by the person/people recording it for the books."

    I feel that that is the most powerful statement in your blog. It's also a thought that I've had since U.S last year.

    And it's a thought that has been further in my mind since this semester in Sociology class. We talked about how reliable and eye witness is. Our class ended up deciding that eye witnesses are not very reliable sources...at all. When you think about it in history the same thing applies.

    For example take the text books from all different countries about the world war- every single country is going to have a different side of the story.

    Things are not always as they seem, and we should always remember that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wooooow Man you totally blasted my brians with this entry(Classic George. When i go home im going to burn my U.S history book in the name of the truth damm it.

    This entry really makes me think that the government or any one else out there known as a reputable source could twist and turn events of history to make them favor one side or the other. It's wierd to think that maybe one history book from the U.S.A might tell a different story from a history book from another country about the same event in history. I imagine that this happens all the time to moderate and control what people think about certin situations.

    This entry just really makes you question and analize what your reading and learning these days before you just blatently enter that information into your brian thinking it is the truth.

    ReplyDelete

 

Email Me!