Is history actually written by victors ?

[Avi]

It's often said that history is written by the victors. My taking on this whole subject is it might be partially true but not entirely. History written by scholars are written way after the events of victory and defeat , who revisit the era incorporating all sides and aftermath of the effects in consideration.

Like the victors the losers have equal motive to paint the picture with their using their own brush and canvas. The bigger difference between written history and studied history needs to be taken into consideration when we evaluate an historical event. All the version of history written by the victors need not be untrue by default.

Gentleman what do you say when you read an historical piece in the modern era , do you consider the timeline the immediate past or future or go along with the writer's notion.

 

[BlackOpsIndia]

Cant say about ancient times but modern history is definitely written(manufactured) by lefties.

 

[Avi]

Cant say about ancient times but modern history is definitely written(manufactured) by lefties.

Why do you say so ?
Modern history is almost scientifically researched and becomes even more difficult to alternate.

The propaganda parties might have a short term gain but over a period of time ,things become clearer.

 

[Shashank]

I would say history that mango men read is written and managed by paid propagandists. Each one with own vested interests. How can a common man differentiate which version of history is correct. I would say Victor's manipulate history.

 

[BlackOpsIndia]

Why do you say so ?
Modern history is almost scientifically researched and becomes even more difficult to alternate.

The propaganda parties might have a short term gain but over a period of time ,things become clearer.

When you find historians, specially Indian historians, those who write, those who got promoted as "Intellectuals" all have a particular ideology. One of them very renowned one said that Modi becoming PM is darkest moment in Indian history after 1947 partition!

This is the objective approach by historian! literally discarding millions of Indians opinion just because he was promoted by 60 years rule. They are pampered in a certain environment, paid well, nurtured, cared for, no wonder power got to their heads. How can you expect them to write history objectively?

EDIT:

Another Example:

1991 reforms are hailed as greatest reforms of India, Manmohan singh was made hero out of it but nobody asked who put India into that situation?

First you take a nation to the verge of bankruptcy and then hail yourself (falsely) as reformer! Not a single person will ask why we reached that state? Who was responsible? Why no action was taken? Why they kept sleeping.

The reason I used the word "falsely" above is cuz those intellectuals who did the reforms were under IMF pressure. When a country reach the bankruptcy status the only institution that can bail them out is IMF, and IMF then take control of policy of country so as not to lose the money loaned. They dictate the terms, they tell what to do and you have to do it, the most recent example in neighbourhood was Pakistan, when they reached IMF and if people missed that within few months they will again goto IMF for bailout and you will see their remarks and Pakistan's conduct after that. They shove the reforms down the throat.

This is one of the biggest fraud done with common man, they are feed that those were economic reforms done by Manmohan but actually they were compulsions, literally dictated in writing, point by point, the only option you had was to say "yes sir".

 

[Avi]

When you find historians, specially Indian historians, those who write, those who got promoted as "Intellectuals" all have a particular ideology. One of them very renowned one said that Modi becoming PM is darkest moment in Indian history after 1947 partition!

This is the objective approach by historian! literally discarding millions of Indians opinion just because he was promoted by 60 years rule. They are pampered in a certain environment, paid well, nurtured, cared for, no wonder power got to their heads. How can you expect them to write history objectively?

Yet another example of the whole question. so is it always the victors , maybe not. But as I mentioned with time history takes different shapes and the final product may not be what we read today. Election of Modi is too early for scholarly understanding , the aftermath's would determine the real historical version.

 

[Parul]

Cant say about ancient times but modern history is definitely written(manufactured) by lefties.

You've aptly summed it up in a line. NCERT/DU Books describes Bhagat Singh as Terrorists and Mughals as Hero's.

 

[VCheng]

It's often said that history is written by the victors ........

...... but only by those who do not wish to learn from the lessons of said history, to put it succinctly, since they regard said lessons to illuminate their own personal beliefs and biases in an uncomfortable analytical light.

 

[BlackOpsIndia]

You've aptly summed it up in a line. NCERT/DU Books describes Bhagat Singh as Terrorists and Mughals as Hero's.

You will never find the barbarism done to Sikh gurus by Aurangzeb, one of them was of them was burned alive, another sawn into two, the third one was boiled alive as they said no to converting to Islam. All three were companions of Guru Teg Bahdur ji.

These facts are always expunged, you also wont find 1962 war in text books as it will put Nehru in bad light. There is no history but an ideology promoted systematically.

 

[BlackOpsIndia]

Yet another example of the whole question. so is it always the victors , maybe not.

Maybe rulers is proper, victors are often discarded by rulers, countless people who gave life for Indian independence are example of it.

 

[Levina]

It's often said that history is written by the victors. My taking on this whole subject is it might be partially true but not entirely. History written by scholars are written way after the events of victory and defeat , who revisit the era incorporating all sides and aftermath of the effects in consideration.

Like the victors the losers have equal motive to paint the picture with their using their own brush and canvas. The bigger difference between written history and studied history needs to be taken into consideration when we evaluate an historical event. All the version of history written by the victors need not be untrue by default.

Gentleman what do you say when you read an historical piece in the modern era , do you consider the timeline the immediate past or future or go along with the writer's notion.

Reminds me of Churchill and Hitler.
My school books were all praise for Churchill & Roosevelt, they were called men of honour while Hitler was shown in a bad light. My opinion hasnt changed much about Hitler albeit Churchill’s image has taken a setback. After all he was the man who left millions of Indians starving and caused the biggest artificial famine in modern history.
Lets not forget that Roosevelt was the man behind the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
So upto this it pretty much proves that victors get an upper hand in manipulating history.
Now the fact that commoners like me have found out that Churchill wasnt the god that he was made out to be is enough to prove that over a period of time HISTORY CHANGES.
Yes it does!

This so because over a period of time the minority which was aware of the other side of history worked hard and stumbled upon certain compelling evidences to prove popular beliefs wrong.
So i believe that ppl evaluate the past with the same set of filters they use when watching the TV news. Most of them will listen to the versions that flatter their prejudices and received opinions and a handful will do some extra homework, seek out new data and form their own conclusions and largely get ignored by people who don't want to be bothered and like a simpler story in which their side is the good guys.
But over a period of time as more and more evidences come to light every version of history gets scrutinised.
So ultimately its only the truth that comes out.

But then it is NOT applicable to every incident in history. Only the more popular stories get an audience where digging evidences becomes a necessity.

So the history is written by victors is just half as true as HISTORY itself.
Just my humble opinion!

 

[Parul]

You will never find the barbarism done to Sikh gurus by Aurangzeb, one of them was of them was burned alive, another sawn into two, the third one was boiled alive as they said no to converting to Islam. All three were companions of Guru Teg Bahdur ji.

These facts are always expunged, you also wont find 1962 war in text books as it will put Nehru in bad light. There is no history but an ideology promoted systematically.

True. Nehru wanted Indians to Stop Freedom Moment and Support Britishers as they were Loosing World War 2. It's no wear mentioned in History Books. Most students using Indian textbooks don’t know that India fought in World War 2 and the extent to which we participated in it. We cover a lot on the World Wars in class 9 and 10 but hardly do we see how much Indian soldiers and the Navy, in particular, did towards fighting in world war 2, leading up to India’s Independence in 1947. Heck, we had over 2.5 million soldiers in the then British-Indian Army who participated in WW2, which was the largest all-volunteer force in history.

At Present, we have Western Historians who hails Aurangzeb as the True Secular Ruler. Per them. he killed Sikh Guru's as they were creating some Problems for him. However, they cannot tell the Problems - Fighting against Past ISIS!

One can find Umpteenth example of Distortion of History in India by Leftists and INC.

 

[Arvind]

It's often said that history is written by the victors. My taking on this whole subject is it might be partially true but not entirely. History written by scholars are written way after the events of victory and defeat , who revisit the era incorporating all sides and aftermath of the effects in consideration.

Like the victors the losers have equal motive to paint the picture with their using their own brush and canvas. The bigger difference between written history and studied history needs to be taken into consideration when we evaluate an historical event. All the version of history written by the victors need not be untrue by default.

Gentleman what do you say when you read an historical piece in the modern era , do you consider the timeline the immediate past or future or go along with the writer's notion.

Yes, I highly doubt even Mahabharata.

 

[Levina]

Yes, I highly doubt even Mahabharata.

What is it that you doubt about Mahabharta?

 

[Arvind]

What is it that your doubt about Mahabharta?

Pandavas were evil.

Kauravas were right !!

 

[Levina]

Pandavas were evil.

Kauravas were right !!

No kidding.

But every one has their set of “rights & wrongs”. Hence every view is prejudiced.

Morally right may not always be the right thing to do and it is for this reason Krishna gave Geeta updesh to Arjuna. Or how is a student like Arjuna supposed to kill his teacher Dronacharya?
It was morally wrong but for the larger good Arjuna had to kill Drona.

But i would request you to not continue on topic of religious importance as that would deviate the discussiosion.
Lets save this topic for a lighter thread and continue discussing historically proven facts on this thread for better comprehension of the audience here.


Ciao

 

[Arvind]

But every one has their set of “rights & wrongs”. Hence every view is prejudiced.

Yes, but we always judge based on collective conscience of prevailing mindset. Or else why even have courts.

Morally right may not always be the right thing to do and it is for this reason Krishna gave Geeta updesh to Arjuna. Or how is a student like Arjuna supposed to kill his teacher Dronacharya?
It was morally wrong but for the larger good Arjuna had to kill Drona.

How do we judge criminals? As per today's laws or as per the laws prevailing at the time of crime committed?

But i would request you to not continue on topic of religious importance as that would deviate the discussion.
Lets save this topic for a lighter thread and continue discussing historically proven facts on this thread for better comprehension of the audience here.

So touchy these religious folks are.

Over and out !!

 

[VCheng]

You will never find the barbarism done to Sikh gurus by Aurangzeb, one of them was of them was burned alive, another sawn into two, the third one was boiled alive as they said no to converting to Islam. All three were companions of Guru Teg Bahdur ji.

These facts are always expunged, you also wont find 1962 war in text books as it will put Nehru in bad light. There is no history but an ideology promoted systematically.

What you point out is a failure of the Text Book Board, and not the historians who have documented just about everything Aurangzeb did and did not do as the Emperor, and what happened in 1962. History itself is merely a continuous narrative. It is our desire to mold it according to our own dearly held views that is the problem.

 

[ashdoc]

Some historians are of the opinion that the pandavas were Tibetan invaders , based on the fact that they indulged in polyandry in draupadi's case . Polyandry is a Tibetan custom . Also pandu sent his wives to get impregnated by others, that too in the mountains near Tibet. No self respecting aryan would indulge in polyandry and allow his wife to get impregnated by others.

Those who have studied the Mahabharata say that the ways and manners of kauravas are sophisticated and those of pandavas are rude and uncivilized. Maybe the pandavas were Tibetan invaders who defeated the Aryan kauravas and wrote history in their own favour after killing them .

 

[Himanshu Pandey]

Please discuss your heart out here.. But refrain from any religious BS..

We overall discourage religious debates and off topic religious posts or posts which includes religious point of view are not appreciated.

This is history you all can find enough to discuss without making controversy.

Regards.