[OT] How much of history do we really know?

[reapersaurus]

Neat.

As a general comment, it will never cease to amaze me how people believe that we know what actually happened historically, much less pre-historically.

We know jack, and what we do know is skewed by who wrote/translated what we've read.

edit:
I did not start this thread.
Henry split this discussion off from the Warrior Woman thread, starting it with this out-of-context reply to someone's post about how media distorts the accuracy of our knowledge of history.

For the record, I would be very hesitant to create a New Off-Topic Thread just for my opinion of how most people are misled in their faith in history.

 

[Amos_Sten]

Neat.

As a general comment, it will never cease to amaze me how people believe that we know what actually happened historically, much less pre-historically.

We know jack, and what we do know is skewed by who wrote/translated what we've read.

Sorry but we do now quite alot of what has happened historically. Yes their is bias with texts but it is possible to work around that especially when it is back up by archeological evidence.

 

[reapersaurus]

Sorry but we do now quite alot of what has happened historically.

I am of the opinion that you are very naive to believe this.

 

[Amos_Sten]

I am of the opinion that you are very naive to believe this.

Don't worry I feel the same about you. So we know nothing about WW2, or WW1 or the French revolution or the American revolution? Too recent for you lets go back a bit further. The Crusades or Rome or slavery in Athens or the Peloponesian war or the law codes of Dracon or the age of Tyrants.

Which bit of these do we know nothing about because according to you we should not be able to even name these let alone know what happened?

 

[green slime]

Don't worry I feel the same about you. So we know nothing about WW2, or WW1 or the French revolution or the American revolution? Too recent for you lets go back a bit further. The Crusades or Rome or slavery in Athens or the Peloponesian war or the law codes of Dracon or the age of Tyrants.

Which bit of these do we know nothing about because according to you we should not be able to even name these let alone know what happened?

Amos_Sten, what reapersaurus says is true:

Even as recent as WW2, we do not know the absolute truth in all things. "Truth" is a very subjective matter. Three people witness a car accident, they will have three different decriptions of what happened. Which one is the truth?

We can ascertain certain facts due to traces of evidence left at the scene, and fill in some of the blanks with some good guesstimation. But we will never, ever truly know the complete truth.

For instance looking at your WW2 example, we could examine why Hitler attacked at Kursk. Some would say because he felt needed a victory politically, to woo Turkey. Some would say it was for the home front. Others suggest it was megalomania. But the only people who could possibly answer this are dead, so we can only speculate.

Looking even further into the problem; Why did the allies not bomb the railways leading to the extermination camps? They were well informed and knew what was going on. We don't know why they didn't. There are all sorts of guesses as to why nothing was done.

Or even deeper still: What is the exact number of people killed in the concentration camps? It was a very large number, that we know. We also know that the Jewish World Congress has estimated that number to be approx 6 million based on censuses taken across Europe prior to the war. But these censuses cover a large span in time (the Polish census was in 1920, I believe), and guesstimates the number of births and deaths in the various affected countries up until the actual "final solution", and pays no attention to cross border migration, which was not miniscule during this particular episode in European history. If you look at surviving German documents, a still-staggering-but-much-lower number is reached, even considering that a large number of documentation was destroyed. Others have tried to estimate by other methods. The truth is: we don't know. It was a horrifically large number of people who met a truly despicable ending in the hands of a nightmare regime, and we in western europe have Uncle Sam to thank for not squirming under the heal of oppression.

 

[Amos_Sten]

Amos_Sten, what reapersaurus says is true:

Even as recent as WW2, we do not know the absolute truth in all things. "Truth" is a very subjective matter. Three people witness a car accident, they will have three different decriptions of what happened. Which one is the truth?

We can ascertain certain facts due to traces of evidence left at the scene, and fill in some of the blanks with some good guesstimation. But we will never, ever truly know the complete truth.

For instance looking at your WW2 example, we could examine why Hitler attacked at Kursk. Some would say because he felt needed a victory politically, to woo Turkey. Some would say it was for the home front. Others suggest it was megalomania. But the only people who could possibly answer this are dead, so we can only speculate.

Looking even further into the problem; Why did the allies not bomb the railways leading to the extermination camps? They were well informed and knew what was going on. We don't know why they didn't. There are all sorts of guesses as to why nothing was done.

Or even deeper still: What is the exact number of people killed in the concentration camps? It was a very large number, that we know. We also know that the Jewish World Congress has estimated that number to be approx 6 million based on censuses taken across Europe prior to the war. But these censuses cover a large span in time (the Polish census was in 1920, I believe), and guesstimates the number of births and deaths in the various affected countries up until the actual "final solution", and pays no attention to cross border migration, which was not miniscule during this particular episode in European history. If you look at surviving German documents, a still-staggering-but-much-lower number is reached, even considering that a large number of documentation was destroyed. Others have tried to estimate by other methods. The truth is: we don't know. It was a horrifically large number of people who met a truly despicable ending in the hands of a nightmare regime, and we in western europe have Uncle Sam to thank for not squirming under the heal of oppression.

However we were not discussing "truth" the original comment was

"As a general comment, it will never cease to amaze me how people believe that we know what actually happened historically, much less pre-historically.

We know jack, and what we do know is skewed by who wrote/translated what we've read."

No where in this was "truth" mentioned. Yes we may not know exactly how many people died in an event but we atleast know the event happened and have a rough guess at why and how many did die. Which is a long way from the we know nothing about history.

Yes there are differences in the wriiten records of the holocaust but look again at my post on dealing with historical bias and think through reasons why both sides would have different figures for the number killed.

If history is too confusing something for people lets try something else. Do we know everything there is to know about physics? Almost certainly not but would you find it acceptable to claim that we know nothing? It would seem to me that such a claim is over simplifying matters, not a good idea when you are trying to prove your knowledge.

 

[Mark Chance]

Because certain myths are perpetuated. How many times have you read "6 million Jews were gassed to death"? This is common "fact". Something you may see in any newspaper article on the subject.

The majority of deaths in the concentration camps were of Cholera, Dysentry, TBC, and similar, due to truly inhumane treatment, in unsanitary conditions. Yet the myth persists, and is permitted to persist. Yes, people were gassed, but not 6 million.

I've never read the claim you quote, and Holocaust studies have occupied a sizeable chunk of my academic life. What's more, your second claim is misleading. The majority of Jews killed by the Nazis were not sent to concentration camps. They were sent to death camps, and there is a world of difference between the two.

Conservatively estimating, about 3 million Jews were systemically murdered in Nazi death camps. Another 1.5 million were killed by the Einsatzgruppen and related killing squads. Another 900,000 died of disease, et cetera, in horrible conditions of ghettos and other similar places. Tens of thousands of other Jews died in transit between point A and the death camps.

The majority of Jewish deaths were the result of deliberate murder.

 

[Amos_Sten]

Because certain myths are perpetuated. How many times have you read "6 million Jews were gassed to death"? This is common "fact". Something you may see in any newspaper article on the subject.

The majority of deaths in the concentration camps were of Cholera, Dysentry, TBC, and similar, due to truly inhumane treatment, in unsanitary conditions. Yet the myth persists, and is permitted to persist. Yes, people were gassed, but not 6 million.

And this is just for events 60 years ago.

However do some research and you gain a better grasp of the situation. Not the "Jack" Reapersaurus claimed.

Are you telling me that we know the cause-and-effect chain leading to any major event? To the actual reasons behind decisions? Simply stating that an event has occured is not good enough for Historians. We strive to explain why events occur.

Again do some research and you can come up with a good theory. Not the "Jack" Reapersaurus claimed.

The further back in history we go, we become even uncertain as to whether cerain events have even occured. Did X really met Y? Where they really lovers? Was it really the cause of war Z?

Yet there are things we can be certain of. The collapse of the Roman Republic into the Empire would seem fairly certain. Thanks to archeolgical and wriiten records we can also be fairly certain of the major players and their motivations although not always their ultimate goal. Once more not the "Jack" Reapersaurus claimed.

I suggest that you go pick a history book from the early twentieth century and examine what is said there, about certain events and their causes, and then read a more modern text on the same subject.

Or I could read the original sources and form my own opinions then compare them with the other theories out there. Radical I know but some people do things like that no take the word of the History channel.

Histories depend very much on the records of those who were closer in time to the events, yet in many cases these can be several hundreds of years after the events they are describing. You see the problem? Certain inventions, certain events, certain details, are inevitably wrong. And when you cannot ascertain the absolute truth, speculation leaps in through the window, all to often.

Fair enough, I never claimed that we knew the absolute truth, just that we knew more that the "jack" Reapersaurus claimed. If I was interested in absolute truth I'd study philosophy not history.

Reapersaurus did not say "We now nothing about history". He stated, rather poorly perhaps, that we think we know alot more than we in actual fact have confirmation for/proof of. The question is: How much of the information we have can we trust? How much of the information we have do we consider reliable?

He said that we knew "jack" which to my mind means nothing (Ah the irony of discussing an intent in a phrase in a discussion on bias in written texts.) not that we don't know as much as we think we do. Sloppy language isn't much of an excuse.

Physics is something completely different, because we rely purely on empirical evidence, not on local descriptions of what occured 500 years prior. It is repeatable. Modern physics is not thrown out the window every time a new theory is brought forth.

But then again I have never heard of anyone completely discounting an original text. Even if factually inaccurate in can give a view of the society of the time.

The question is even more apparent if you choose an area in which there is lots of controversy. Examine texts by a variety of authors on the development of Homonids. You will find a great number of different theories and ideas as to how we evolved. Controversy and speculation are an important part of science, but in the study of history, we are never going to exclude it. Because we examine not only what, but why and how. That is what is interesting, and that is what is so hard to pin down..

Which is again a discussion of what we know and how it fits together, they all agree that we atleast know something not the "jack" Reapersaurus claimed.

Many historical records we rely on a single author, who lived many years after event, as a source of the information. This is hardly a satisfactory situation?

But it is the best we have and a historical document that is based even in part on now lost texts is guess what more than the "jack" Reapersaurus claimed. Quite often the texts backed up by a single author are backed up by archeological evidence. The motivations of the people involved will naturally be distorted but that does not mean that the text has no value.

 

[green slime]

I've never read the claim you quote, and Holocaust studies have occupied a sizeable chunk of my academic life. What's more, your second claim is misleading. The majority of Jews killed by the Nazis were not sent to concentration camps. They were sent to death camps, and there is a world of difference between the two.

Conservatively estimating, about 3 million Jews were systemically murdered in Nazi death camps. Another 1.5 million were killed by the Einsatzgruppen and related killing squads. Another 900,000 died of disease, et cetera, in horrible conditions of ghettos and other similar places. Tens of thousands of other Jews died in transit between point A and the death camps.

The majority of Jewish deaths were the result of deliberate murder.

I'll be non-political and merely state that I have read other figures. I have seen the figures you quote as well. If you are so well-versed, you will be aware that most of those figures come from estimates based on the censuses taken in Europe in the period between the world wars. Which takes no consideration of migration from Europe, nor crossborder migration, and being counted twice; in Poland in 1920 and in France just before the war.

I am not in the position to say one set of figures is correct and another incorrect. I can easily pull up sloppy newspaper articles stating 6 million were gassed to death. Or that they were boiled to produce soap, and the hair used for socks for submariners. "Facts" abound. Your statement merely supports my argument: There are lots of disagreement about historical "facts". In other words, we don't really know. Each person needs to decide for themselves which sources they consider reliable.

 

[Mark Chance]

I'll be non-political and merely state that I have read other figures. I have seen the figures you quote as well. If you are so well-versed, you will be aware that most of those figures come from estimates based on the censuses taken in Europe in the period between the world wars.

No, most of those figures come from Nazi records. There are vagaries, areas of discussion and clarification, et cetera. But two facts remain:

1. Jews were by and large sent to death camps not concentration camps, and to conflate the two is dishonest.

2. The majority of Jews killed by the Nazis were murdered in death camps.