Consequences for eliminating the Past

[Atthet]

Blacks want to erase the past, marked by slavery.
Indians want to erase the past, marked by genocide.
Jews want to erase the past, marked by holocaust.
Christians want to erase the past, marked by the sins of the father.
Germans want to erase the past, marked by national socialism.
Japanese want to erase the past, marked by atomic bombs.

What are the moral and ethical consequences for destroying the Past, or rewriting it in a more favorable and comforting light?

Who has most and least to gain from erasing the past? If a genius is descended from a long line of monarchs, inventors, engineers, warlords, priests, and emperors, then will this individual want to erase the genetic superiority of his past, or become uplifted and exalted by its recollection and pride? Can't a son feel proud for the achievements of his father? If yes, then can't a son feel ashamed for the disgrace of his father?
Are the sins of the father passed on to the son? What about pride?

[Impenitent]

history never repeats

-Imp

[chaz wyman]

Blacks want to erase the past, marked by slavery.
No , quite the opposite. They want it recognised and acknowledged.
Indians want to erase the past, marked by genocide.
.
No , quite the opposite. They want it recognised and acknowledged.
Jews want to erase the past, marked by holocaust.
.
No , quite the opposite. They want it recognised and acknowledged.They want to use it to justify their own oppression of Palestinians.
Christians want to erase the past, marked by the sins of the father.
.
No , quite the opposite. They want to wallow in it.
Germans want to erase the past, marked by national socialism.
This is true of some.
Japanese want to erase the past, marked by atomic bombs.
.
No , quite the opposite. They want it recognised and acknowledged.
What are the moral and ethical consequences for destroying the Past, or rewriting it in a more favorable and comforting light?
The present is always the author of the past. It's a shame that you don't know what it actually happening in History - Maybe you should read some?
Who has most and least to gain from erasing the past? If a genius is descended from a long line of monarchs, inventors, engineers, warlords, priests, and emperors, then will this individual want to erase the genetic superiority of his past, or become uplifted and exalted by its recollection and pride?
The past is not erased, it is accumulated, until history bears little relationship to what actually happened
Can't a son feel proud for the achievements of his father? If yes, then can't a son feel ashamed for the disgrace of his father?
Are the sins of the father passed on to the son? What about pride?

What about it?

[thedoc]

Blacks want to erase the past, marked by slavery.
No , quite the opposite. They want it recognised and acknowledged.
Indians want to erase the past, marked by genocide.
.
No , quite the opposite. They want it recognised and acknowledged.
Jews want to erase the past, marked by holocaust.
.
No , quite the opposite. They want it recognised and acknowledged.They want to use it to justify their own oppression of Palestinians.
Christians want to erase the past, marked by the sins of the father.
.
No , quite the opposite. They want to wallow in it.
Germans want to erase the past, marked by national socialism.
This is true of some.
Japanese want to erase the past, marked by atomic bombs.
.
No , quite the opposite. They want it recognised and acknowledged.
What are the moral and ethical consequences for destroying the Past, or rewriting it in a more favorable and comforting light?
The present is always the author of the past. It's a shame that you don't know what it actually happening in History - Maybe you should read some?
Who has most and least to gain from erasing the past? If a genius is descended from a long line of monarchs, inventors, engineers, warlords, priests, and emperors, then will this individual want to erase the genetic superiority of his past, or become uplifted and exalted by its recollection and pride?
The past is not erased, it is accumulated, until history bears little relationship to what actually happened
Can't a son feel proud for the achievements of his father? If yes, then can't a son feel ashamed for the disgrace of his father?
Are the sins of the father passed on to the son? What about pride?

What about it?

YES, and many of those who want the past to be recognized, now want to exploit that recognition to advance their own cause, often at the expense of other groups. The real tragedy is that many of those attempting to exploit the wrongs of history were never the victims of that history, but are now reaping benefits beyond what they themselves have earned. There are many who wish to extend the sins of the father as far as possible even though they are not Christian or even religious, but they have found a lever to use to their advantage.


History does repeat, often by those who do not understand their history.

However, understanding you history helps to keep you from making the same mistakes over again, so now you can make new mistakes.

[Lynn]

What are the moral and ethical consequences for destroying the Past, or rewriting it in a more favorable and comforting light?
The present is always the author of the past.

Yes, and it is the victor who re-writes the past, eradicating traces of dissent as best they can.

[thedoc]

What are the moral and ethical consequences for destroying the Past, or rewriting it in a more favorable and comforting light?
The present is always the author of the past.

Yes, and it is the victor who re-writes the past, eradicating traces of dissent as best they can.

And in this way they can justify their mistakes, so that they can repeat them.

[chaz wyman]

But this is what history is.
It's not all negative. Many modern histories have revised or added to our understanding of the past by uncovering things that have been previously ignored or suppressed. It's not only the powerful that has the ability to do this; the extension of education has enabled a range of other perspectives to flourish.
Here one thinks of feminist history, black history, and histories of, say, the Civil War that have revised and re-aquainted us with the roots of left-wing politics from the 16thCentury.
As long as good historians with a duty to the facts and academic rigour are producing the history, then we can accept their truths, or at least be compelled to consider them.

But when such revisions can taken up by political interests then is when the problems start.
For example 'feminist/black history' a few years ago tried to claim Cleopatra as a Black Queen. She was offered to children as an image of black power and sexual equality.
The travesty is that she was of a Greek family, being the first in her family since Ptolemy (Alexander's inheritor), to have bothered to learn to speak Egyptian. Further I reject that we should be in the business of valorising a tyrant and autocrat.
You don't have to look far to find buckets of BS about the birth of the US and their list of heroes.
Or about the exaggerated role of the US and the Uk in the defeat of Germany in WW2.

[chaz wyman]

History does repeat, often by those who do not understand their history.

History never repeats, except as a cliche. Only those who fail to understand the details and particulars of an historical event reducing it to bland generalisms, think that way.
All history is unique.

[thedoc]

Only those who fail to understand the details and particulars of an historical event reducing it to bland generalisms, think that way.
All history is unique.

History is unique in detail, but in the broad scheme it is constantly repeating. Empires rise and fall and have done so for thousands of years, it only differs in the detail. Wars have been fought, won or lost, and differ in the details. Civilizations florish and then decline, but different civilizations, in different places.

[chaz wyman]

Only those who fail to understand the details and particulars of an historical event reducing it to bland generalisms, think that way.
All history is unique.

History is unique in detail, but in the broad scheme it is constantly repeating. Empires rise and fall and have done so for thousands of years, it only differs in the detail. Wars have been fought, won or lost, and differ in the details. Civilizations florish and then decline, but different civilizations, in different places.

Empires rise and fall is meaningless.
Wars are won and lost - no shit - are you kidding? Thats like saying some things sink and some float.
You are not talking about history. Such comparisons reassure people that they know what is going on when in fact they are clueless.