Philosophy of history

The philosophy of history asks at least these questions:

History is written by the Victors

It is often argued that the victors use their political dominance to suppress their defeated enemies' version of historical events in favor of their own propaganda.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A classic example of history being written by the victors would be the scarcity of unbiased information that has come down to us about the Carthaginians. Roman historians left tales of cruelty and human sacrifice practiced by their longtime enemies, but as the Carthaginians were utterly exterminated by the Romans, we only have one side of the story.

Related Topics:
Carthaginians - Human sacrifice

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Similarly, we only have the Christian side of how Christianity came to be the dominant religion of Europe, but not the pagan version of these events. We have the European version of the conquest of the Americas, but not the native version. We have Herodotus's Greek history of the Persian Wars, but no Persian counterpart.

Related Topics:
Christian - Pagan - Conquest of the Americas - Herodotus's - Persian Wars

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A possible counterexample could be the American Civil War, where it can be argued that the losers (Southerners) have written more history books on the subject than the winners and, until recently, dominated the national perception of history. (Confederate generals like Lee and Jackson are generally held in higher esteem than their Union counterparts, and popular films like Gone with the Wind and The Birth of a Nation have frequently told the story from the Southern viewpoint.)

Related Topics:
American Civil War - Lee - Jackson - Gone with the Wind - The Birth of a Nation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Obviously the victors do have advantages in promoting their version of events, even if they don't erase their enemies completely from existence. In earlier eras, the victors controlled the churches, the courts and education. In dictatorships, ruthless censorship allows only the state-approved version of events to be made public, and much that happens remains secret. Even in liberal democracies, the victors control public school curricula, major news outlets, copyrights and the entertainment industry. Most countries have a kind of national mythology that emphasizes their own virtue, bravery, decency and cultural superiority which they teach in their schools.

Related Topics:
Dictatorship - Censorship - Liberal democracies - Curricula - Entertainment industry - National

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Attempts to correct this bias in American education have often been denegrated and dismissed as political correctness.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Often, however, the argument that history is written by the victors is used as a rhetorical trick to distract from the fact that an advocate has no supporting evidence. If you ask why no history book has ever mentioned this event (whatever it is), you'll be told that it's no surprise considering that the winners write the history books. In cases like this, the argument has a lot of similarities with conspiracy theories, where the absence of supporting evidence is proof of how deep the conspiracy goes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For instance, the writing of history in the West was tremendously influenced by what was written in the Soviet Union after the birth of communism in 1917. Not only did the West mirror many of the same studies to correct the "communist bias" but it failed to examine those areas neglected by Soviet scholars. So, once again, not only were the winners shaping the writing of history generally but did not allow alternate interpretations to appear. Consequently, Menshevik writers and revolutionaries became one of the largest groups to lose in this struggle. The Menshevik view of Russian history has been all but forgotten. That is why the leading Menshevik historian Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov (1868-1927) is little known in Russia and almost unheard of in the West. Rozhkov has been dismissed as a ?minor Menshevik historian with a Bolshevik past? or even as just ?another free-thinker?, but this is unfair. He was one of V.O. Kliuchevskii?s most gifted disciples and the most influential Russian Marxist historian of the late imperial and early Soviet period of Russia?s history. In fact, there were only two well-known and respected Marxist historians in Russia after the Bolshevik seizure of power late in 1917: N.A. Rozhkov and M.N. Pokrovskii. The importance of both men to Russian historical scholarship and intellectual work in general in the first decade after the revolution cannot be underestimated. Pokrovskii, unlike Rozhkov, maintained his allegiance to Bolshevism. Rozhkov, having formally disassociated himself from the Bolshevik organisation in 1911, becamean outspoken critic of Bolshevik tactics at political meetings and organisations and a zealous activist for Menshevism. Being on the winning side after 1917 meant that Pokrovskii was fêted as the doyen of Soviet historians during the first decade of Soviet rule. Rozhkov, by contrast, fared poorly at the hands of Soviet critics because of his Menshevik beliefs and was lambasted by Pokrovskii himself.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

See: Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov (1868-1927) in http://hronos.km.ru/biograf/bio_r/ro.html or contact Dr John Gonzalez at the Rozhkov Historical Research Centre at http://www.rozhkovcentre.org

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~