Could history be changed?

5whiskey said:
The short answer, is the founding documents are etched well enough right now that even our grandkids won’t be ignorant of their existence. Some will not be ignorant of their content. The constitution, common sense, federalist and anti federalist papers, etc will not be forgotten over night. These documents go a long way to enshrine the 2nd amendment if you don’t have an anti-gun agenda when you read them.
Click to expand...
Those documents will be forgotten within another generation. They aren't being taught in schools any more. Have you watched any of the videos on Youtube in which interviewers ask college students about who did what in the founding of the United States? The kids generally don't have a clue. Worse, they don't care that they don't know -- they think it's a big joke.
 
The kids generally don't have a clue. Worse, they don't care that they don't know -- they think it's a big joke.
Click to expand...

This was true half a century ago, its probably always been true.

History is boring, its not "relevant" has always been the case with many people. Today social media and the huge focus on the "now" is moving the age old apathy to warp speed.

The documents of our Founding Fathers won't go away, but people's desire to read and understand them, will. Already today (and for quite some time before today) our children aren't taught using the documents themselves, but are taught with excerpts from them and "explanations" of what they mean.

We've gotten to a place (and gone past it) where people make legal arguments over what the correct definition of the word "is" is. (Thank you Pres. Clinton :rolleyes:)

We have, essentially two different things in play here, the actual words of the documents themselves, and what various people in positions of authority say those words mean.

To me, it seems those things were more congruent in the past than they are today, on many issues.

Can history be changed? sure. But, it's a lot of work. Its easier, and just as effective to make people believe it is irrelevant.

"Don't matter what those old dead rich white guy slave owners wrote a couple hundred years ago," or, does it?? :confused:
 
Don't matter what those old dead rich white guy slave owners wrote a couple hundred years ago
Click to expand...

This. It’s a demanding task to erase well established history. Much easier to confront it with, “yeah that doesn’t matter it was 250 years ago, here look it’s the iPhone 17x (or whatever model)!”
 
44 AMP said:
We have, essentially two different things in play here, the actual words of the documents themselves, and what various people in positions of authority say those words mean.
Click to expand...
This is true. Look at all the furor that followed the Heller decision. For years, various people on the anti-gun side had been arguing that the 2A "meant" that the right to keep and bear arms applied only to militia duty [and that, since today the National Guard is the militia, it meant that only the NG should have guns]. Then Antonin Scalia upended that with a scholarly dissection of grammar and sentence construction, and -- by a 5-4 vote -- it became the law of the land that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT linked to service in the militia (or the National Guard).

And Hillary Clinton (who is a lawyer) has stated that Mr. Scalia was wrong.

So we're back to the concept that history is written by the winners, and Lewis Carroll:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Click to expand...

And that gets us back to the Constitution. The "progressives" want us to believe that the Constitution is a "living document." This means that it means nothing, because its meaning has to change as our use of the words involved changes. A good example is "regulated." The anti-gun side tells us that the 2A leaves the RKBA wide open to all sorts of restrictions because the 2A says the militia should be "regulated." But that's not what the 2A meant by "regulated" (according to me!). In the context of the 2A, I believe that the Founders meant "regulated" to be "ordered, consistent" -- like a "well-regulated" clock mechanism being a clock that keeps good time. Clearly, it makes no sense to maintain that a "well regulated" clock means a clock that has a lot of arbitrary restrictions placed on its operation.

This is why its so important to appoint more judges and more Supreme Court justices who are originalists, or "textualists." The Constitution has to be applied (IMHO) according to what the words meant to the authors. That's the only way government can be faithful to the framework that was established for the nation. If a large enough segment of the population thinks the original meaning and intent should not apply any more -- well, that's why there's provision for amending the Constitution. The problem is that there isn't a large enough segment of the population to enact the kinds of changes the liberals want, so they're trying to accomplish their goals by linguistic coup d'etat -- not changing the words, just changing what the words mean.
 
The "progressives" want us to believe that the Constitution is a "living document."
Click to expand...

Because, well, it IS!! :D

Just not in the way they CLAIM it to be. Once again, the "progressives" (or what ever name they are going by this week) have taken a term, "Living document" and fitted it with their own definition, as if that makes their definition the correct one.

The Constitution absolutely IS a living document, but not in their sense of the term. The Constitution is a living document because it contains the ability to "grow and change" with the times. This is NOT done by re-defining the words in the document (as the progressives claim) but through the established AMENDMENT process.

The Amendment process allows us, (we. the people, etc) to add to or remove things from the Constitution. That is the sense in which it is a "living document". And that is the only sense in which the Constitution is, or should be changed.

Yes, there is also the "new Constitutional Convention" option, but to date, that has never been used (and hopefully never will be!) the Amendment process has been in use, and does work, proving that while a bad idea may become law (Prohibition) the same process does work to undo that bad law (repeal of Prohibition).

Where the Amendment process falls down is only in the opinions of people who think that their pet social theory should be a Constitutional amendment, and they don't get it passed. It may be a good idea, it may be a fine idea (equal rights for women, balanced budget, term limits, or something else) or it may be a very poor idea (Prohibition) but that doesn't mean we have to have it as a Constitutional Amendment. The process allows for either to be passed, and either to be repealed as the will of the people.

That is what makes it a living document, not changing the definition of the words in it.
 
44 AMP --

Good point. I did mention the amendment process, and I agree that this could be construed as making the Constitution a living document. But I think we agree that's not what the liberals mean when they refer to it as a "living document." Their meaning is the Humpty Dumpty "Words mean what I say they mean when I say them" meaning.
 
sanitizing history

In my park there WERE a number of interpretive roadside plaques and markers that used quotes from a diary of an individual that traveled through the region in the 1800 era. Literally thousands of visitors read these plaques/markers in the 40-50 years or so that the site has been operational up to that time.

In about yr 2000, certain elements at the District, HQ, Regional , and DC levels agreed remove those quotes. Sometimes the "offensive" sentence or word was simply ground off the plaque. Other times, the marker was removed, and a new message and marker installed that may or may not have addressed the original topic the historical author was referencing.

Objections by field personnel were ignored. Despite the fact that the language/wording was literally period correct, written history, the public no longer will view it.

History was effectively rewritten.
 
In the Soviet Union, it was Pravda. (Truth)

In Nazi Germany it was the Volkslicher Beobacter (People's Observer)

In the US today, it seems the New York Times and Time magazine (and Time/Warner sub corps) have appointed themselves in that role.

I am reminded of the joke;

What two individuals have changed 20th century history the most??

Adolph Hitler, and Oliver Stone! :D
 
History can’t be changed, but the record can certainly be changed and often is.

Sometimes historical record needs to be corrected, and I believe that it should be corrected when the historical record contains inaccuracies.

But the other side of the coin concerns misrepresented history for political gain, to control the populace, financial rewards and any combination. Seems to me that this is happening at an increased rate due to the influence of social media. Not sure if this is only my perception... or that the same rate of misrepresentation has always gone on; anyways, it happens sometimes in error, but mostly for nefarious reasons.

As a Gen X’er, I was raised on technology, and used it. I remember browsing TFL on a cell phone over ten years ago... I used it to research things that I found of interest. TFL is one of the last pages that I visit on a regular basis. Guns are actually a low priority hobby, I have other interests that exceed my interest in guns. Now technology is being used to, distort or misrepresent history, but the history is still there for those who are willing to find it. For five years now, I’ve been collecting books instead of browser bookmarks and since 2016 I’ve increased my collections dramatically.

I’ve gone on too long, and I need to finish posting this from my hot tub from my phone lol.

Yes, history IS being changed. Yes gun ownership in the US will cease, and “history” will not be kind to those that supported the second amendment.
 
History can’t be changed, but the record can certainly be changed and often is.
Click to expand...

No, the historical record is always changed. There is no unbiased complete representation of history (what actually went on), anywhere. So even if a bit of the historical record is 100% accurate for what it depicts, for example, the video/movie of a given even such as JFK's assassination, it is also inaccurate in the sense that only provides a limited perspective of what went on and to rely on it as being the whole story is foolish.

To talk about "the other side" changing history is as much naive as it is an attempt to change history itself. "Our side" attempts to change history all the time. As I stated above, ALL HISTORY IS REVISIONIST HISTORY. There is no way to get around it.

Even the attempts to "correct" the historical record are rewriting history and are fraught with period specific biases.

Even in people's own minds, history changes over time.
 
History cannot be changed.

Sometimes it is worded incorrectly then sometimes corrected. But all the incorrect wording is not corrected, then found and claimed reality.
 
Bart B. said:
History cannot be changed.

Sometimes it is worded incorrectly then sometimes corrected. But all the incorrect wording is not corrected, then found and claimed reality.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The events of the past cannot be changed, but "history" is not the events themselves. "History" is the record of the events of the past.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history

It has been said that "History is written by the winners." It should be obvious that this statement is true. Imagine what history books would say about WW2 if the Axis had won and our side had lost.

My daughter is in college now. When she was in high school, she occasionally said things about American history that sounded very different from the history I was taught in high school back during the Pleistocene epoch. She was in a private, parochial school where the students had to buy their books. When she was finished, I gave all her books except one to the school so they could pass them along to someone who couldn't afford them. The one book I kept was her American History book. I kept it because I want to read it, and see just how different the history the kids are being taught today is from what I was taught. (I haven't read it yet, but I know exactly where it is. It's on my list.)
 
"History" is ALWAYS wrong....

In someone's point of view.

In order to have history (a record of past events) someone has to witness it.

Which brings us to the recognized fact and famous quote (Heinlein??) that "two witnesses who tell exactly the same story are lying."

And this applies to the most factual accounts. When "history" is written to fit the popular culture of the time, and/or the political/social agenda of a specific group (or just the author's personal beliefs) it can get truly weird.

I can think of many examples, one of them is how a certain group of men went from being the people who "pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the cause of Liberty" to being a bunch of "old dead rich white slave owners".

It all depends on who is doing the telling, and what message they want to tell.
 
As I find myself saying more and more frequently, "It's all in the spin."
Click to expand...

Because pretty much that's all we're given these days, and most of the time, we aren't even being given it, its SOLD to us. We're paying for the lies, and spin we get, in cash as well as historical integrity.
 
+1 for post number 17.

History is not a fact act all. What actually happened is usually very open to interpretation.

I read this book: Orphans Preferred: The Twisted Truth and Lasting Legend of the Pony Express by Christopher Corbett. There is a lot of material, some sections are hilarious and informative and some sections I slogged through but one thing made perfectly clear: "History" is NOT a fact.

At the start of the book, the author explains the opening ceremony of the Pony Express. Quoting multiple newspaper reports and various eye witnesses- no one can agree on who the rider was, what time they rode in to town withing 8 hours, or any details at all about the event except the day. Well, maybe the day. All the accounts are wildly different. Throughout the book, the author takes humorous glee in presenting historical "facts" that simply can't be true but are widely accepted and recorded- pointing out that self interest and political interest of the day warp things wildly.

Facts:
1. Mathematics has facts. Math and Logic (and Philosophy). Since we make up the rules of those games, any result that can be proven is a Fact. In the base 10 number system, 1+1= 2 and in a perfect flat plane, if we follow euclid's postulates, then the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.

To be clear though, because the mass of objects warps space (see Science), if there is such a thing as a universe with a perfectly flat plane, it would be destroyed if there was a person in it to see that plane.

2. Science- A fact is a careful observation or measurement that is repeatable.

This isn't so simple. "This 2x4 is 8 feet long" can be argued by using super accurate measurements. Even if one says it's 8.0125935 feet long, temperature, humidity, vibrations, dust... will all make the "fact" a bit fuzzy. It doesn't matter who does the test though, so long as they use the same equipment they should get the same result. You can test again and again.

3. Historical
" ...history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past - and that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. Historical truth and facts therefore change over time, and reflect only the present consensus (if that). " (E.H. Carr, What is History, 1961)

We can't go back and see again, measure again, ask other people, take more photos from different angles.

4. Facts of Law are similar to Facts of Mathematics in my mind, since human beings make both games. So long as you follow the rules of the game, you can have "facts". Change the rules, the whole chain of logic changes. So if a court goes back and changes a rule, all kinds of new legal logical consequences may tumble down as a result.

I like math.
 
History is not a fact act all. What actually happened is usually very open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

The term "history" is used both for the actual events that happened in the past, and the record of them.

The events themselves happened, and cannot be changed. They are facts. The RECORD of those events is a tale, told by people, and THAT is what is subject to constant re-interpretation and revision, that is presented to us as fact.

History is fact. The telling of history might not be.
 
So speaking of “spin”. Remember this old chestnut?

An Atlanta newspaper reporter is sitting on a park bench and observes a woman with a little toddler walking down a path and from the other direction comes a man with a pit bull on a leash. The pit bull sees the toddler and with a snarl breaks loose from the man and slathering at the mouth, with malice in its eyes charges the toddler. A concealed carry holder sees this happening, whips out his pistol and drops the raging pit bull with one shot.

The reporter rushes over and says “This is remarkable, the front page headline tomorrow will read ‘Atlanta Hero Saves Baby’.”
“But I’m not from Atlanta,” says the man.
“Okay, then ‘Southern Sharpshooter Saves Baby’ will be the headline,” says the reporter.
“But I’m actually here on vacation from Vermont,” says the man.
“Well then the headline will be 'Carpet Bagging Yankee Guns Down Family Pet'.
 
History is the events of the past. It doesn't change based on who is do the telling. We can spin it anyway we want and most of us do. That doesn't change it anymore than removing statues of great men of the past because we don't like the mores of the time in which they lived changes their contributions or value.

Understanding history takes far more effort than most of us are willing to put in. We find a version that is convenient and fits our worldview and we're good to go. Sometimes it is impossible to know what really happened regardless of our commitment to doing so. Most of us then have to rely on trusted scholars to try to make sense of it. I'm afraid trusted scholars are becoming harder and harder to find. Scholars, like politicians and the media often have their own agenda. Of course this was as true in days past as it is today.

It is the sophisticated methods of manipulating and influencing issues used today that scares me. While this doesn't change history, it certainly can change the future. Well then, maybe you can change history...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top