When we are considering
History how should we regard it? Cue many thousands of words citing learned
historians, philosophers, theologians, scientists and others down the ages.
Their aim will have been to make it explicable, perhaps logical and often
related to some form of coherent human activity.
On the other
hand, some have suggested the conspiracy and cock-up basis for much of it. But
I would enlarge this by the BEAMS approach. B is for botch, bungle; E is for
error; A is for accident; M is for mistakes and misunderstandings; and S for
stupidity.
Cock-ups and
conspiracies are intertwined, the one breeds the other. But they both have
elements of BEAMS at their heart. This is not a "what if" approach,
that is another matter. It is about taking a good hard look something and the
detail to find just what really happened.
Again, I have
pointed to the difference between what we do know and what we don't. We do have
written records, up to a point. They may not be reliable or truthful. But there are many written records lost. We
do have calendars that are a help.
What we do not
know because they are unrecorded are the conversations, discussions and rest
between this person and that. We will have many reports of these at second or
third hand but the further you get from time and place and original the more
doubt there is.
One factor in
history are the relevant records, where they are, how they might be accessed
and how easy or difficult they are to read. For me the newly digitised records
that are indexed of so many sources means that all that time and expense of
travel etc. can be avoided for many records.
Also, gone are
all those scribbled notes in boxes or files that are piled up that are easy to
forget or rather later find. Also gone is the heaving, getting and ploughing
through hefty volumes with a good chance of missing or not registering
significant detail.
Rewriting the course of history or changing history has become so much
easier. There could soon be a lot of it about. The great house of history might
well be found to have a lot more "beams" than expected.
Good point. Scholarship could advance dramatically if this new nexus is used wisely.
ReplyDelete"History is but a lie agreed upon."
ReplyDeleteNapoleon Bonaparte.
Imagine future scholars relying upon the Daily Mail...
ReplyDelete"Rewriting the course of history or changing history has become so much easier."
ReplyDeleteYes - imagine all those quiet conversations nobody ever recorded. Now they can be invented once those involved are dead. Perhaps before.