history is written by the victors?

Scroll to see replies

Someone evidently hasn't read up on the Cold War too well.

Actually, orthodox Marxist histories tend to be pretty pro-West, in a way, and see it as the most advanced and progressive part of the world. Plus Marxist historiography tends to emphasise internal social issues rather than power politics (except as a consequence of the former).

Anti-Western historiography generally came from anticolonialism.

Marxism is an ideology who's primary aim was the destruction of the capitalist western world.

Marxists realised early on that they couldn't win the economic war, so they turned to culture.

Western society is absolutely conquered by the ideas of 'cultural Marxism'

The Frankfurt schools and their aims were as follows:

1. The creation of racism offences and hate speech laws. 
2. Continual change to create confusion (e,g., in school curricula). 
3. Masturbation propaganda in schools, combined with the homosexualization of children and their corruption by exposing them to child porn in the classroom. 
4. The systematic undermining of parental and teachers’ authority. 
5. Huge immigration to destroy national identity and foment future race wars. 
6. The systematic promotion of excessive drinking and recreational drugs. 
7. The systematic promotion of sexual deviance in society. 
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against the victims of crime.
 9. Dependency on state benefits. 
10. Control and dumbing down of media. (Six culturally Marxist Jewish companies now control 96 percent of the world’s media). 
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
 12. An all-out attack on Christianity and the emptying of churches.

The above list is what defines the western world.

You westerners are a conquered people. Let me give you quote by one of the Marxists who conquered you:

Willi Münzenberg:

“to organize the intellectuals and use them to make western civilization stink. only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 81

nulli tertius

Original post by anarchism101

Speaking as a history postgrad student, it's not really true in the context of modern academic history. It's true in the sense of (mostly - they still do exist today to an extent!) old-style, 'official' histories where governments (well, usually governments) sponsor people (sometimes deliberately directly, sometimes much more implicitly) to write narratives in a way that favours them.

For a long time now (at least since the 1950s in the West), serious historians have viewed this kind of thing as very bad history. or even not worthy of the title of being considered 'history' at all.

Of course, this bad history is unfortunately often still propagated by politicians and governments.

You are unduly critical of "official histories".

They are usually written in a ponderous style to get the basic facts of an event: a war, a life or an institution into the public domain. They also tend to treat the entire subject matter and chronology with equal respect and do not merely concentrate on the "sexy" bits of the story.

Reply 82

scjman

I would argue that it depends on whether the losers still have sympathisers and supporters. For instance, Napoleon was ultimately defeated, yet he is still very highly regarded by some. Same with Boudicca and Hannibal Barca (people know their names, yet barely anyone remembers the names of the generals who defeated them). It is important to realise that different historians see the same events and people in completely different ways

Reply 83

narusku

I always hear this phrase; it'll be interesting to see how the debate unfolds.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 84

KingStannis

Original post by meld98dog

https://historyxpolitics.wordpress.com/ historical theory

Posted from TSR Mobile

An interesting summing up of Carr's "What is History?".

Perhaps you could do one for "The Nature of History" by Arthur Marwick? Directly opposes postmodernism and Carr's claims, and lays out the historical method for all to see and judge. Fascinating book.