History for the Winner - Essay Example

Running head: APA TYPING TEMPLATE Most people would agree with the idea that history is written by the victors, meaning that the more successful (militarily, economically, authoritatively, etc.) countries both receive the most attention and decide on how to present themselves to the world. Student A. Sample Grand Canyon University Abstract In this paper I will explore if we fairly say that the winners write the history, justifying this statement with couple of example. Also I will investigate how the way history is reported shapes the perceptions of a society. At the end I conclude that sometimes history is written by today's winners, who were yesterday's losers. We have to seek the historical truth in the middle and to take into consideration the historical moment as well as who documented it. (1) Is such a conclusion fair War is a tragedy. And the losers in a war having been destroyed and devastated are left at the will and mercy of the winners. We are led to believe that winners are those who direct the course of history and they are to decide what will be written in the textbooks. In this essay I will investigate and show that indeed winners respectively those in power write the history, providing substantial examples. The history is as true as the victors say it is. Beresford (2003) claims that there is much evidence to justify that indeed, winner write the history. He narrates about a recent discovery that he made about submarine warfare during the World War II. Bereford (2003) never doubted it that German submarines were torpedoed. However when the archives were opened few decades later, the myth clashed, as apparently it was only one such recorded submarine attack. Is this fair This rhetorical question pervades generations of historians and scholars. My opinion is that it is not fair for history to be written by the winners, but the facts show something else. Bereford (2003) cited Jean-Luc Picard who famously said that the victors invariably write the history to their own advantage. In his article Wollman (2003) asks why we are flooded with terrible cases of war crimes committed by the Iraqis, however none such occasions are shown for the U.S violations. He quotes that according to the A.U.N. resolution it is forbidden to use uranium shells because it is declared as a weapon for mass destruction. Nevertheless, U.S. military has regularly used it, which will cause deadly diseases in the civilians and which doctors started to document recently. The mistakes of the victors have to be hidden. New, displaying revelations are not allowed, because they are painfully reminding of the past mistakes. It is a common trait for the winners to want to forget their faults. That is why the history is written only with the version that today's winners provide. The version of the losers will be heard and revised at least half a century later. When studying history, people have to be careful with the sources they use. They have to consider that we never hear the losers and if we did, we have to weigh their story as well. The most dangerous pitfall that we can fall into is to believe that every source of misleading just because we are slaves to the clich - history written by the winners. This might lead us to suspect the authenticity of every document, since surely if it is written, the winners did it. We can never to able to solve this historical dilemma, and the likelihood to trust the winners is greater than vice versa. I believe that the majority of historical evidence is based on true facts, which are not constantly manipulated by those who take power. (2) How does this fact shape the portrayal of societies unlucky enough to lose a pivotal confrontation Not only do the winners write the history, but for the sake of history at least what is left for the losers is the chance to revise it. I know that the Vatican, for example, is absolutely strict about the historical facts and does not allow for the archives to be opened if a century has not passed since the event. The reason why this is so, is the objectivity. Historical narratives are transferred from generation to generation. And the participants of the event shape the society's perceptions. When you aim to alter the perceptions of the society, understandably, the winners will be depicted as warriors who fight fearlessly against the enemy. The winner's victory is somewhat exaggerated, to put it mildly. In his book "The unquiet ghost" Hochschild (1994) investigates the time of Stalin's regime. Stalinism is an example of how those in power shape the society and create an internal war. Hochschild (1994) shows that during Stalin rule, the evidence that was gathered of the "enemies of the people" was totally imaginary. People were killed with fabricated facts. After Stalin's death in the 1950s rehabilitation processes began. After the injustice done, Hochschild (1994) asks one of his interviewees why they reveal only single cases and not release all of them. He received a reply that they can not state out loud that the country was run by illegal government. The interpretation is that whether in state of war or state inner conflict, those who lose will never be admitted to be right, or to receive honors. The winner takes it all and he is privileged to decide what will be remembered. Losers have to obey and the only chance to hear their side of the story is when the generation of the winners passes. As we know Germany during Hitler tried to alter the history after the World War I, as compensation for the losses they faced. Often today's winners were yesterday's losers. Dubuc (2007) wonders how it is possible for Jews, probably the most persecuted and repressed people in history to survive millennia after millennia, having recorded their history and having the most complete and detailed archives. He refers to Paul Johnson who prologued that during the centuries the Jews firmly insisted that history has a purpose and should be written and documented reliably. The example of the Jews clearly reveals that even if a nation is on the loser's side it should keep the discussion about the past open and keep it safely recorded. The portrayal of the losers' society is shaped in such a way that it is hard to be historian. Hochschild (1994) commented on one of the historian's remark that the profession of historian has never been more difficult than the time after Stalin's death. Historians felt uncertain about what they would have happened yesterday. In other words the political winners decide what will be reported as true, what will be exaggerated. Such type of propaganda seems to accompany every war, no matter the extent. The winners justify their actions and behavior, while the voice of the losers is muffled. For those who study history, the most important thing to do is to verify their sources and to gather as many perspectives as possible. Weighing the history through the different angles will allow for us to conclude which holds the biggest grain of the historical truth, or if the truth is somewhere in between. References Beresford, D., (2003), The history that winners write, Observer, Sunday, 27 April, 2003 retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/27/iraq3 Dubuc, P., (2007), History written by the winners. WordPress, retrieved on 7 October 2009 from http://paul.dubuc.org/2007/01/07/history-written-by-the-winners/ Hochschild, A., (1994), The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin, Viking Penguin. Wollman, N., (2003), Winners get to write the history books, hide their war crimes, Daily Nexus, Vol.83, issue 113 Read More