#BBC History | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

freecandychaos · 1 year

Text

#Historywrittenbythevictors

The statement history is written by the victors is at best, deeply misleading and at worst, entrenches the world as it appears now.

First, most history was/is orally transmitted because literacy was privilege only for royal and religious men, and those who trained them.

Second, it suggests that everybody agrees with who the victor is, which is simply absurd. History is a human invention and therefore can be neither universal nor neutral.

Third, it implies that History is rooted in some social Darwinian concept that victors are paragons of natural greatness or virtue, that’s why only their stories were preserved in writing.

A cunning piece of propaganda, one that gives the writer (read historian) an inordinate amount of uncontested power. Writing a history is a years-long commitment that requires both incredible talent and skill, along with resources and access to the source material.

What if only certain people are given those necessary funds and access, and this person has, like we all do, blind spots and biases? Could entire societies just disappear? The ones, perhaps, that challenge the victor’s story? How can you argue if you’re not supposed to exist?

Or the historian could just lie. Like about the great war of 1422, the one against ‘the gays’? It’s famous and is why until recently we didn’t teach LGBTQ+ history.

Not because of centuries of dehumanizing religious, cultural, social, and legal oppression. Not because those who control our history have actively denied their existences. It’s to “protect” children from the “losers” of a fake war I just invented. See how easy that was?

Like reminding you of your first ‘Industrial Revolution day’ at school. The one where we all re-enacted the pivotal battle between factory owner automatons and the perpetually starving, physically mangled workers. That’s why there is such wealth inequality in our society. To the victors the spoils, etc.

If the poor wanted to be remembered, they should have “worked harder.” They should have used their “natural” greatness. The kind they gained by deciding to come out of a rich person’s vagina. If only they had controlled the family they were born into and ensured that both they, and British society, agreed they were a straight cisgendered man we would have reason to care. Why do the poor insist on being born, and remaining, poor?

What?

You’re not a man, then you must be a woman. Those are the only two possibilities. Weird how in capitalistic societies, if you have enough money, your choices are limitless, but society gets to pick and enforce your gender. A binary that doesn’t solely exist to maintain the patriarchy through inheritance, coverture, and the unequal division of labour.

It’s fixed. Always has been. Do not consult physicians, psychiatrists, scientists, or anthropologists. No intra-faculty fraternization. Disciplinary identities are fixed.

Back to women. If you’re a woman, you must have a uterus. That’s how women work see and that means you’re asking a lot of questions when you should be busy securing that line of succession.

Now if you survive that person being violently ripped from your body, and the decades of illness and potential destitution that threaten you and your offspring(s), you’ll be written down in History as the mother or sister or daughter or aunt of a great man. You know, as a treat.

What?

How are you still not happy?

What else could you possibly want?

An identity of your own?

In this economy?

Who wants to read about how you nearly died of blood loss, in a dirty, badly maintained hospital, at 21, because you were a victim of s*xual violence?

People want to hear about victors Babe, like that man who nearly died of blood loss, in a dirty, badly maintained hospital, at 21, because a sniper shot him when he went ‘over the top’ in contravention of a direct order. He grew up to be a one-term politician of no repute and you?

Oh, you raised your children on your own, became a professional and revolutionized how we conceive of the human mind or eye or something.

Well, it doesn’t count because I wasn’t listening. Your body was too distracting. Cover it up please.

This part about historic erasure started out as parody but based on the programming in the UK is it possible that this conversation may have genuinely occurred? What other explanation could there be for the lack of diversity in British history, both academic and otherwise?

Or are the executives correct in arguing that they must rehash the same story because “people” aren’t interested in anything else. But who, exactly, are these “people”?

Are they suggesting that millions of Britons or the hundreds of millions who descended from them, desperately desire incessant discussions of the s*xual exploits of an abusive addict who left massive, gaping wounds across both the psychical landscape and the bones of those who displeased him?

Is it possible that the billion plus people who speak English find the sounds of the deadliest war ever so comforting that they can be lulled to sleep by the warbly, watery voice of Sir Winston Churchill?

Maybe, in fact, the populations of those countries that make up the Empire, sorry “Commonwealth”, ARE still waiting for yet another documentary about the Queen who, to the public, will always be a morbidly obese middle-aged widow despite evidence to the contrary.

Or maybe?

No, that would be silly.

It’s not like recording every detail of the lives of mass murderers, making them the foundation of British history, and then forcing generations of school children to learn it uncritically, would create a nightmarish hellscape where the justification for all brutality is that someone was “asking for it?”

Nor could anyone seek to perpetuate a narrative that entirely erases centuries of involvement, and the tremendous wealth gained, from the trafficking of millions of human beings simply because their skin was darker.

Surely, no one in Britain could possibly still believe that their ancestors “explored” three “barren” continents, right? They know millions of Indigenous people HAVE and CONTINUE to exist, don’t they?

Something as crucial as the collective story that informs our laws, society, culture, identities, and worldviews, could not possibly be marred in the same prejudices and inequalities as our health, housing, education, immigration, justice, media, and political systems are.

We live in a meritocracy, have since 1945, just check our surplus of publicly available history. Books, magazines, blogs, social media, podcasts, tv shows, history weekends and tours, and dozens of sites and museums that will take your money in exchange for a story that is in no way as white-washed as their walls.

Speaking of stories, there’s a streaming service, one that is certainly not a backdoor advertisement for the 200-billion-pound tourism industry, started by someone who earned their place. No nepobabies here, stop asking!

History TV is also very progressive. So committed to women’s equality it is that most female history presenters have a doctorate, a significant social media presence, years of “in field” experience, a posh British accent, are aged between 25-55, beautiful, and blonde (preferably).

It takes at least a hundred thousand dollars and nearly a decade of work to complete a doctorate, and the equivalent amount of “do for the exposure” years of unpaid labour to reach such professional heights.

Not to mention the astounding amount of emotional energy and psychological agility it must take to create and maintain a captivating enough persona, in addition to a private identity, so you can charm people with a curated version, in hopes they will continue to demand you as a possibility.

A possibility unavailable until the year 2000.

Most of today’s female history presenters grew up in a world where the government was headed by two women but could not teach you about the significance of that as the sole tv presenter. What fun!

Even more fun, most of the earlier female led history shows were so wide ranging that they included sex workers, Henry the VIII, and the home. Nothing says women’s equality like allowing them to talk only about sex, a husband, or domesticity.

And what about the men?

Don’t worry, the executives have enough self-awareness to realize that letting men have only a bachelor’s from Oxbridge and no professional experience, or just be famous actors with educated friends, would be proof of the entrenched sexism that continues to run rampant.

Plus, they are smart enough to recognize that forcing women to keep their mouths shut about how they are treated, or they will be damaged and defamed by the very media they need to promote the work that IS truly meaningful to them, would show that women’s voices are continuing to be silenced despite the shopfront of pretty people in historic dress.

History TV, proving that no matter how educated, accomplished, inspiring, or talented a woman is, all anyone will ever do, is talk about her hair. History Barbie, now available.

Oh, have you noticed that nearly every host has similar complexion and ability level and that could give the viewer a distorted belief about who is “allowed” to “exist” in British history.

Why would they do that?

Certainly not to empower one group to perpetually reinforce systems that would only benefit them.

That would be horrifying.

It’s just an extraordinary coincidence. Don’t investigate. Besides, history tv is a just a bit of fun. “Real” history occurs in universities. You know those places filled with people who don’t have “real” jobs.

Funny how when only a minority of people could attend universities, those professors had “real” jobs. But when women and minorities began to attend in larger numbers, suddenly those jobs were “useless” and “elitist.” I wonder why?

How could having an extensive knowledge on how our society developed in hopes that we may possibly redirect it and create one that is more equitable, inclusive, and just be “elitist”, yet having an extensive knowledge of a trade, medicine, technology, or the law is not?

Plus, higher ed institutions are posting record high profits, like all healthy businesses, and like all businesses the wealth is shared equally. Those impressively dedicated and immensely talented employees have been in no way harassed, demeaned, or threatened with starvation, homelessness, or deportation if they speak out about the atrocious working conditions.

Nor has anyone complained about the *extortionate* prices that young, mostly international students, pay for a degree that may be their only path out of material poverty.

But what if you can’t afford University, public or otherwise, because of that material poverty, or other reasons not mentioned, and cannot access history tv or sites, there are still books and libraries, aren’t there?

First, who needs libraries when you have free wifi?

All libraries do is grant individuals a safe, clean, and warm place to access the world’s repository of (admittedly somewhat biased) knowledge for free.

A place that does not require you to buy anything to stay there.

One that may help you develop a community that can shield you from the cutting loneliness of a cruel, suspicious world.

Somewhere with devoted professionals that genuinely care about their community and deliver the highest quality of services despite decades of austerity. Just like the people who work for the university you can’t afford, what rotten luck.

Besides, what has a publicly funded, free-to-access library ever done for you that personal data stealing social media sites and paid streaming services haven’t? If there isn’t a library near you, you can still buy history books, right?

Hopefully from an independent bookstore that does not need to listen to a sinister corporation that may want to supress uncomfortable topics. There are some, somewhere, that haven’t been crushed into oblivion by an online marketplace that will slowly consume everything in existence.

That is unless you are one of the millions of Britons who can’t afford rent, food, electricity, and heat making books a luxury.

Or perhaps you are not fluent in English. Or speak English and are functionally illiterate. Or are a fluent English speaker and are literate but have a condition that makes reading and processing difficult.

Or have such bad mental or physical health that even if wanted to you don’t have the energy, ability, or support. Or maybe you don’t have a safe place to sleep. Or maybe you do and its only one room.

Or maybe you have the space but not the time because you are so busy working to keep yourself and your family alive. Maybe you are single parent, or a couple with jobs that do not pay enough. Maybe you are caretaker for a family member, or as a profession.

Maybe your job fills you with such anxiety and dread that all you can only do is focus on surviving tomorrow. Maybe you live far from the seats of power or belong to a community that was violently persecuted for trying to educate your children and then were violently punished for not having done so.

Maybe you don’t want to participate in a community that glamourizes those who tried to obliterate your culture. Maybe it took too much from you to involve yourself in a system that demands your labour but denies your humanity.

Maybe, it just hurt too much, to see your ancestor’s blood pouring from the pages but never being told of their resilience, beauty, power, or successes.

But back to the original point, that history is written by the victors, and victors are winners, so who wins history prizes? Awarding committees wouldn’t overwhelmingly favour those connected to elite academies, or men, or white people. Impossible! We live in a meritocracy, remember?

That’s why there is nothing revolutionary about a winner, who was state educated somewhere your post code is an expiration date, survived a series of compounding socio-cultural traumas, and built a remarkable career in a new country without the aid of a notable last name.

In the years since the book’s release, the powerful have not continually sought to recreate the merciless society it describes and cement their own political and economic hegemony by destroying the tools the writer used so no one could replicate its cultural impact.

How lucky are we that no one with money and privilege decided to use this exceptional book, one that will bewitch you with its brilliant empathetic prose, so hauntingly beautiful you will grieve people you have never met, to push a vilely transparent narrative that crumbles under any scrutiny, because that, would be indefensibly villainous. Good thing villains do not control or write our history, victors do. And as you know, victors are paragons of natural virtue. Why else would we learn from them?

#british history #Public libraries #bbc history #lgbtqa

1 note · View note