Wikipedia tells us that the word "history" comes from the Greek historia, which means "an account of one's inquiries." In essence, then, the basis for history is distinctly dependent upon man's curious nature. If no one ever asked "why?" there would not exist this drive for transcription. In our historical accounts we answer questions, whether they be the questions we ask ourselves, or the questions we assume the generations of the future will need answers for.
What, then, does it mean when we re-write history? Common knowledge would state that history is always written by the winner. Does no one ever ask about the losers? Or, since the winner of a philosophical debate is likely to have influenced the greatest margin of future thinkers, does the generation ahead simply look back upon the debates of the past for affirmation? In other words, do we only look back to make sure we're the heroes?
This seems especially the case within American history. We wrote the stories of the violence and terrorism we enacted throughout The Revolution to reflect the outcome-- if we were currently subjects under Her Majesty's reign, I doubt we would have the same ideas regarding the correctness of violent riots and the destruction of hard-harvested leaf goods.
We have also attempted to re-write the events of the communist era, though admittedly to a lesser effect. It's difficult to justifiably re-write McCarthy's mass witch trials, the similarity between his prosecution of Hollywood and the actions in the 1600s in Salem is mirrored so well it's sad.
What I really want to know is whether the Great Depression of the 1930's was, in fact, so depressing that we have not made nearly enough inquiries. We hear that time is circular, and history repeats itself, but its hard to believe it is this inevitable. Is history in fact only circular until its lessons have been learned and we can escape its noose? It is logical to think that, were enough inquiries made, if enough people asked 'why?' and studied the stock market collapse, we would not have made the mistakes of the last twenty years. So why didn't we? Are we due for another red scare in thirty years?
I wonder that evolutionary progression is dependent upon human curiosity. We've seen it in teenagers before, in a small scale. When they remain content and unchallenged before a television screen, their brains take on a distinct monkey-like appearance, even down to the grunting for food sometimes exhibited by the males of the species. It's sometimes a wonder how the nerdiest of them all manage not to throw feces.
So I guess the real question is whether the technological progressions of our age have diminished our curiosity. With the constant presence of the internet (if you have an iphone, the internet is literally in your pocket) comes the constant availability of quick answers, and therefore a lack of real necessity for long-term learning. In other words, you don't really need to remember all the statutes of the Bill of Rights anymore, because they can be looked up instantly with a tap on a touch screen... and you are likely to forget the information a mere moment later, because you can always find it again.
I wonder if we are going to lose our ability to concentrate, and therefore lose our ability to one day answer life's biggest questions. Most revelations require a lot of time and obsessive thought over one particular subject, but when is the last time you did that? There is hardly a need for it anymore, because there is no real need to fill time with thought-- there's always the internet to amuse you. And a child that is constantly amused and content is a child that doesn't ask questions. Will it become a child without history? If it is a child without history, how will it ever escape the tight inevitable noose that time will wind around it's neck without the countless experiences of it's forefathers? I guess we'll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment