Um...sorry, no. That popular fiction still makes the rounds.
Those who control the narratives for a given audience write some history books. Those with other versions write them for their audiences. That's why there are so many books on the same subjects. Have a gander at "The Persistent Past: Discovering the Steele Diaries" and see how and why.
Are you suggesting that censorship doesn't exist? Are you suggesting that censoring 'misinformation' is a legitimate function of government? Are you suggesting that our schools are dedicated to teaching an impartial view of history?
Censoring is a legitimate function of some governments because they declare it to be legitimate and no one stops them. Censorship is "legitimate" only when governments assume it and no one prevents it. But it has nothing to do with "winners" and "losers."
Writing "history" is a very selective and broad-ranging process, and teaching it is as well. One school teaches it one way; another, some other way. This book, then that one, then that other one as other versions appear. They aren't all "winners."
The trouble with the concept of "impartial history" is that without a time machine there is no such thing. Regardless of the source, it can be interpreted and presented in different ways, with facts made up or left out completely. We're seeing that unfold before our eyes with all the different interpretations of the 2024 presidential campaign, where Kamala is now pushing a version completely at odds with the record...but her partisans believe it.
So, how did the government in question come to power? Is it legitimate? Did it come to power thru indoctrination and censorship? Are citizens fearful of speaking against it? Does ot arrest the opposition?
Those governments commission history texts for their schools. The 'leaders' of that government are the winners, and they control the history, just as in 1984. I rest my case.
You seem to be under the delusion that only governments write and approve history books for schools, which is ludicrous. Governments commission comparatively few; in the US, none.
The people writing most histories are outside of governments, and most governments have nothing to do with those histories. Claiming that Howard Zinn wrote his book at the behest of the US government is laughable, and his viewpoint is hardly that of any "winners."
You seem to be under the delusion that there are hard lines in any of this.
Someone, whose name escapes me, did some basic research on the books written by and about presidents that were available in school libraries. Would you be shocked to learn that most schools were well stocked with books by and about the Obamas and Clintons, and little, if anything on the Bushes and Trump?
You probably know more about the civil war than I do, although I might know more about the social history that led to it. Do you think that public schools are impartially presenting the history? Do you think they are stressing the democratic party's involvement in institutional racism?
In basic terms, do you think the NEA is a non-partisan organization concerned, first and foremost, with keeping their own biases and interests out of education?
The victors write the history books. The losers get censored for distributing 'misinformation'.
Um...sorry, no. That popular fiction still makes the rounds.
Those who control the narratives for a given audience write some history books. Those with other versions write them for their audiences. That's why there are so many books on the same subjects. Have a gander at "The Persistent Past: Discovering the Steele Diaries" and see how and why.
Are you suggesting that censorship doesn't exist? Are you suggesting that censoring 'misinformation' is a legitimate function of government? Are you suggesting that our schools are dedicated to teaching an impartial view of history?
I didn't say any of that.
Censoring is a legitimate function of some governments because they declare it to be legitimate and no one stops them. Censorship is "legitimate" only when governments assume it and no one prevents it. But it has nothing to do with "winners" and "losers."
Writing "history" is a very selective and broad-ranging process, and teaching it is as well. One school teaches it one way; another, some other way. This book, then that one, then that other one as other versions appear. They aren't all "winners."
The trouble with the concept of "impartial history" is that without a time machine there is no such thing. Regardless of the source, it can be interpreted and presented in different ways, with facts made up or left out completely. We're seeing that unfold before our eyes with all the different interpretations of the 2024 presidential campaign, where Kamala is now pushing a version completely at odds with the record...but her partisans believe it.
Kamala lost, yet she's writing a history book...
So, how did the government in question come to power? Is it legitimate? Did it come to power thru indoctrination and censorship? Are citizens fearful of speaking against it? Does ot arrest the opposition?
Those governments commission history texts for their schools. The 'leaders' of that government are the winners, and they control the history, just as in 1984. I rest my case.
You seem to be under the delusion that only governments write and approve history books for schools, which is ludicrous. Governments commission comparatively few; in the US, none.
The people writing most histories are outside of governments, and most governments have nothing to do with those histories. Claiming that Howard Zinn wrote his book at the behest of the US government is laughable, and his viewpoint is hardly that of any "winners."
You have no case to rest.
You seem to be under the delusion that there are hard lines in any of this.
Someone, whose name escapes me, did some basic research on the books written by and about presidents that were available in school libraries. Would you be shocked to learn that most schools were well stocked with books by and about the Obamas and Clintons, and little, if anything on the Bushes and Trump?
You probably know more about the civil war than I do, although I might know more about the social history that led to it. Do you think that public schools are impartially presenting the history? Do you think they are stressing the democratic party's involvement in institutional racism?
In basic terms, do you think the NEA is a non-partisan organization concerned, first and foremost, with keeping their own biases and interests out of education?