History Under Revision

Have you ever wondered just how much of the history you read actually happened? Mrs. X has a book that I’ve been meaning to read called Lies My Teacher Told Me. It covers various points of history that have been glossed over/revised/truncated by our history books. This has popped in my mind because some of the conservative blogs to which I frequent like citing instances where people claim they were either for or against the war from the beginning when the public record actually shows them being on the other side of the fence.

Revision can come as simple as via the sin of omission. For example, did you know that the Vatican did not recognize the state of Israel until 1994, but was the only government in the world to officially recognize the government of the Confederate States of America? Obviously Rome doesn’t like to be reminded of the sins of her past, just like the rest of us (Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee anyone?). But without knowing the whole story, things get lost and crucial historical facts are obscured.

Another major aspect of historical revision comes through developing hypotheses about the past and sticking with that despite evidence to the contrary. Example: textbooks tell of the great campaign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III where he captured the great city of Kadesh on the plain of Meggido. Except that if you read Thutmose’s description of the geography of the campaign and compare it to that of Meggido, you realize that there is no way that the battle could have ever been fought there. The mistake came from a hypothesis formed about the translation of the text of the campaign in the early twentieth century and then archeologists sticking with that hypothesis despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I’ve been reading a number of theories that speculate that Thutmose actually conducted the battle around Jerusalem and may have even been King Shishak who raided the Temple during Rehoboam’s reign. But this theory would screw up the Egyptian timeline and isn’t readily discussed in historical circles.

The whole point is to never truly assume that you know anything about history just based off a textbook you read in school. One must read multiple sources, the closer to the time period, the better. Histories and chronologies written after the fact are biased based on the agenda (deliberate or not) of the author. Vigilance and study are the only ways of knowing the true history of ourselves and then we must apply it forward so that we can truly learn from the mistakes of the past.