History - Question 2

History is written and rewritten. What ways does this make history more complex, conflicted, and open ended?

First of all, to Nealon and Giroux's conclusion that history is not neutral. Of course it isnt'! How long did it seriously take them to figure that out? History is always subjective, and thats why it can be "rewritten." A PERFECT example is that club Ahmadinejad belongs to that believes the Holocaust never happened. Think about that. This is an event in history that is proven by photographs, eyewitness accounts, and the miles of documentation created by the Germans WHILE they were committing genocide. And yet, there are people who just say that the Jews made the whole thing up to gather enough sympathy to get their own country. Fucking baffling. But, it serves as a perfect example to how "conflicted" and "open ended" history can truly be. Also, it serves as a wonderful counter-point to the "history goes to the victor" premise. Another prime example that I'm really shocked isn't in this book is the issues that caused the Civil War. The Theory Toolbox sure loved talking about Gettysburg, but damn did they miss an interesting topic. In the North, we all know that slavery was the main issue of the Civil War. We won, so shouldn't we have full rights to the history? Well, we don't. Many schools in the South really lean the roots of the Civil War towards the state's rights issue, and actually try to avoid talking about slavery. Granted, they still have to address it, but there is a huge difference in saying "slavery started the war" and saying "state's rights started the war, and slaves were kinda involved." So here we have people who LOST the war and are still able to provide their own slant on the events! The point I'm making is the problem with history is there is no way to stop people from putting their own spin on it, and in some cases they attempt to completely change it. The facts can only tell so much of the story, and even worse, the facts can be ignored.