History - The story of the war as told by those who won?

[variol son]

The South Island of New Zealand was originally colonized by a people group known as Waitaha approximately 1200 years ago. The Waitaha were a pacifistic people who lived a semi-nomadic life almost completely isolated from the rest of the world.

Approximately 700 years ago, various other people groups began arriving in New Zealand from various Pacific nations, settling in the North Island. One of these, Kati Mamoe, eventually migrated south to the South Island. Their warriors easily defeated the peaceful Waitaha, the remnants of whom were consumed by the Kati Mamoe through slavery and inter-marriage. The process was then repeated in kind when the Kai Tahu people migrated south from the North Island. After a long series of wars, they had conquered and colonized almost the entire South Island.

Approximately 300 years ago, European ships arrive in New Zealand and upon reaching the South Island they are told by the Kai Tahu that they are the tangata whenua, or people of the land, and that they are the original settlers of the South Island. Neither Kati Mamoe nor Waitaha are mentioned at all.

When they are reintroduced to the history books, it is approximately 100 years ago, by the European colonists, as Mori Ori, a fair skinned people of small stature who were canabalised by Kai Tahu until the few hundred who remained fled to the Chatham Islands. In this way, the Kai Tahu claim that they were tangata whenua was subtley undermined and thus any protests against government sanctioned theft of land were immediately painted in a bad light.

Whilst an accurate account of what happened in my country's past is now taught (more or less - many Maori still deny the existance of Waitaha at least), my example raises a question. To what extent is the history that we are taught, primarily in schools and universities but also through various public awareness campaigns, simply history as the people who won want it to be told? The strongest or most successful's version of events.

[Avatar]

Excellent post Vs, and an interesting question. I think the answers will vary rather.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that who won (and therefore gets to decide which histories are taught) are largely responsible for the version.

Of course, my own country is a perfect example. During the apartheid years we were taught a wonderfully sanitised version of South African history, which did not much take into account the fact that the pioneering founders had not been without their political / social / cultural flaws.

Of course, now the boot is on the other foot, and exactly the same principle is followed in reverse...

--A

[CovenantJr]

Indeed, history is always written by the victor, and few conquerors are so beholden to the virtue of historical accuracy that they will simply teach the facts.

The people who are interested in objective history are never the ones who actually write it.

[dANdeLION]

Yeah, but there are also cases of history being rewritten by nations who didn't conquer, like Japanese schools mentioning nothing of their attack on Pearl Harbor, presumably leaving the students to believe the U.S. attacked them......of course, some of you guys may actually believe that's what happened, so I'll shut up now.

[Avatar]

True...time an "prejudice" is as effective as conquering when it comes to history.

But effectively, I think what we mean is that the people in power, however they got there, basically get to choose how the past is taught.

(Where the hell is Malik? I'm sure he's taken issue with me using that "Victors writing history" line before. )

--A

[CovenantJr]

Where the hell is Malik? I'm sure he's taken issue with me using that "Victors writing history" line before.

Malik took issue with something?!

[Avatar]

You make it sound so harsh. All I mean was that he (or somebody anyway I hasten to add) disagreed that it was the case.

--A

[I'm Murrin]

I would say that it holds true in the short term, but in the long run--with shifting powers and agendae--other sides come out, and eventually more realistic pictures of events emerge.
The existence of an academic community tends to encourage a more balanced image of history, but of course that is a development of the past few centuries.

[Avatar]

Good point Murrin. The truth of reasonably modern historical events rarely stays hidden forever. (We hope.)

Power shifts and changes in who's in charge will hopefully bring it out in the long run.

--A

[CovenantJr]

...in the long run--with shifting powers and agendae--other sides come out, and eventually more realistic pictures of events emerge.

I'd argue that this only adds more and more layers of distortion, rather than clarifying anything.

[danlo]

History is being rewritten on a constant basis. Take New Mexico history, which I taught for two years: Up until the late '70s the "conquistador" Onate was presented in a fairly romantised way, then the truth came out about how horribly he treated the people of Acoma---that held "true" until a year ago when the next edition of that same text mysteriously reverted him to his former "image".

[Avatar]

...in the long run--with shifting powers and agendae--other sides come out, and eventually more realistic pictures of events emerge.

I'd argue that this only adds more and more layers of distortion, rather than clarifying anything.

I suppose that could be true. It depends on the environment really. I think that the "truth" has a better chance of coming out in this modern world of instant global communication.

I seem to remember some time ago that e-mails and discussion boards broke news from a country which had locked down the media and violating human rights or something.

In the old days it didn't matter what you did, (internally anyway), because by the time anybody found out, you were largely done anyway.

Now, that is less true than ever before.

--A

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

I suppose that could be true. It depends on the environment really. I think that the "truth" has a better chance of coming out in this modern world of instant global communication.

I seem to remember some time ago that e-mails and discussion boards broke news from a country which had locked down the media and violating human rights or something.

In the old days it didn't matter what you did, (internally anyway), because by the time anybody found out, you were largely done anyway.

Now, that is less true than ever before.

--A

I agree, especially if you look at it from the perspective of source material: documents, letters, memos, drafts, etc. The further back you go from the electronic age, the less documentation exists, both because of physical constraints (limited amounts of paper, no printing presses, etc) and intellectual constraints (how many people knew how to read and write in, say, 1500?) These days, you can send a document to practically anyone, your email gets stored on your computer and/or on the server you use, you have a variety of storage options for your data... Basically, source materials are so widespread that it would be hard for any organization to try to surpress a given movement or event- somebody's always going to have a copy of an email, a letter, a research paper, or a handwritten manuscript somewhere that will out the truth.

I wonder, though, what will happen when we move to a more paperless society. How much easier will it be to "alter" history when all you have to do is overwrite it on the server, on the hard drive of all the personal computers that are hooked together...

[Avatar]

Excellent point Alynna. The only hope there may be the sheer volume. But on the other hand, that opens up people who preserve "originals" to the possibility of charges of tampering themselves...and round and round we go...

--A

[Cybrweez]

History is being rewritten on a constant basis. Take New Mexico history, which I taught for two years: Up until the late '70 the "conquistador" Onate was presented in a fairly romantised way, then the truth came out about how horribly he treated the people of Acoma---that held "true" until a year ago when the next edition of that same text mysteriously reverted him to his former "image".

I agree, history is rewritten. My example is the Civil War, at least the causes of it. Many now believe slavery was not the major factor. Maybe historians need to change things every once in awhile to keep things lively.

[Avatar]

Uh, I don't believe slavery was ever the major factor. Because it wasn't. FNORD!

This is funny, it's the second time today I'm telling somebody to resurrect the "Secession or slavery" thread in the 'Tank.

I think history is being rewritten to make slavery the cause of the civil war.

--A

[Holsety]

Uh, I don't believe slavery was ever the major factor. Because it wasn't. FNORD!

This is funny, it's the second time today I'm telling somebody to resurrect the "Secession or slavery" thread in the 'Tank.

I think history is being rewritten to make slavery the cause of the civil war.

--A

I would argue that slavery was the major factor. The South saw Lincoln (who wanted to see Slavery die over time) and the north as abolitionists, and as a result broke into outright secession when Lincoln was elected. Although the civil war wasn't waged because the north wanted to end slavery, it happened because the south thought the north wanted to end all slavery. Indeed, a fair amount of the north did disagree with slavery - . They just hadn't planned on killing other Americans in order to destroy it.

"I'd rather be right than be President!"

Even Clay, who took with Daniel Webster incredible steps to preserve the union between the north and south (I believe he was the author of the missouri compromise) was unwilling to support slavery outright.

EDIT-I for one have never been taught in school that the goal of Lincoln and others was, principally, emancipation, that and only that. The opinion does seem to exist nonetheless.

[Avatar]

*shrug* Lincoln told the Confederate states that they could keep their slaves if they agreed not to secede, but if they insisted on secession, then he would be fored to go to war. The South wasn't fighting to keep their sl;aves, they were fighting to secede. QED.

--A

[Holsety]

*shrug* Lincoln told the Confederate states that they could keep their slaves if they agreed not to secede, but if they insisted on secession, then he would be fored to go to war. The South wasn't fighting to keep their sl;aves, they were fighting to secede. QED.

--A

I guess what I'm saying is that the South thought they were fighting to keep their slaves. They thought the north was going to try to subvert stuff by establishing more freed than slave states and other things like that. Besides the conflicts in the 50s like "Bleeding Kansas", President Buchanan made things pretty shitty by generally supporting slavery, and made a lot of northerners unhappy by agreeing with stuff like the Dredd Scott Case (Lincoln accused him of trying to nationalize slavery IIRC). This in turn made southerners nervous that the northerners would be seeking the abolition of slavery, soon or over time, which is why something like 5 or 6 states seceded before he even left office.

Oh, I'm just going to mention at random, it's interesting to note that the North was making more $$ than the south off of cotton by manufacturing it and selling it to the brits, IIRC.

[Avatar]

And the north thought they were fighting to free them. (Most of the rank and file anyway, I would guess.)

Because it's easier to have a nice noble reason like that to convince people to kill each other than having to explain that it's because the people you're killing want thwir won country.

Here OK? I went and found it myself...*mutter*making me work...

Secession and Slavery -- The American Civil War

--A