How much of the past is really known about ?
GeraldtheGnome: There's always claims about what is thought to have been so in the past. How much though does anyone really know about the past ?
The giant midget: It really comes down to on who wrote the event.
Look at the Americans portraying their history as example
Never lost a battle
Protecting democracy throughout the world.
On the other side of the coin it's the opposite
It's all in the eyes of the beer holder
The giant midget: Look at one of the biggest events that has been taught for generations.
The divine intervention of God helping Moses escape with the Isrealites crossing the ocean from some army.
Moses did have knowledge about the ocean tides within that area due to merchant tradesmen exchangeable valuable information about it and used it to his advantage.
No miracle at all ,just knowledge and timing.
DIAMONDfire: If you class it as criminal you have deep deep stories to consider, but if you class it another way its much shorter.
DIAMONDfire: Might be a bit spiritual?
The science outlined in the Bagavad Gita and In the New Testament essentially says the worst of person's can go straight to heaven. Fact its the highest spiritual law known to man, in other words everything turns on a pin head.
I'm out on a limb here but I think its to do with grace and un-grace. But when a story becomes freed from just being a story it turns into something else, a workable law in the realm of cause and effect. Grace is applied to it and it functions as a human law.
How much more would this apply to 'criminal' issues in history? Academia is predicated on injustice in a lot of ways it expounds on difficult truths hidden in fact. Take the issue of madness, it began with the aristocracy and the like taking lepers off the streets. We don't really think along those lines commonly its known as law and decency. But so much more emotion is attached to 'taking lepers off the streets'. Then does it remain criminal? Grace has been applied.
This process which is the tenant of Krishna Consciousness and Christianity turns human affairs into historical matters of importance that don't carry the common taboo usually associated with them, starting to sound a little bit like psychiatry now.
Not only that but persons act and find their identities inside of stories and they are the secret guide. This is the highest law applied. The parting of the Red Sea?
If you stunt this process you get law per se, aggression and conflict.
GeraldtheGnome: What if things of the past were not as you thought they were and that even your adversaries were also wrong or possibly wrong about the same thing ? What if the past that brought you pain and joy still impacts your present and most likely the way that you think in the future ? What if you just found out that something that you up until minutes ago thought was true was not true at all ?
I have never sent anyone away or away from me, not willingly anyway despite the pain and hurt that one did or may have brought to me as to that one in some cases.
GeraldtheGnome: With literature, any kind of literature really, a lot of people get misled. People are told that it was written in a certain specific year or century yet nothing when you look properly at it in many cases has that it was written in that specific year or century originally. Sometimes also there is the claim that an author with a specific name who was the author or editor of what was written or carved or printed or typed when in reality it is still unknown who wrote it. Then with books and other things there is false history and or other misleading content.
The problem on the internet and off it is that too many people don’t truly find out for sure what is true or false or still remains unknown, with some cases no one will ever know. People are told that something is true, sometimes by a peer reviewed group or just by a one claimed expert and accept by default what was presented rather than find out if what is presented is true. For example, what was meant by thumbs up and thumbs down at arena battles with ancient Romans is the opposite than what most people think. What colour Roman soldiers wore is unknown, no one knows what those named Phoenicians were really named. Translations of most long gone writing are not for certain are known, they are based on modern writing and for example Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic and so on of now as well as writing where the letters are not really like the writing that is considered similar to them.
A lot of people look at what are considered to be ancient forms of modern writing, guess how they are pronounced when spoken and then write how they think they were spoken, the transliteration in other words and then in writing and with speech they translate what they think is correct at the time they process the information. When all of that has been done there is no guarantee that the transliteration and the translation of each example is correct. It is most likely that every example is wrong. Then there are examples in the past of hybrid writing and made up writing. If you look at the way Shakespeare had has plays, just as I did when I acted in a school version of the play Macbeth, then if you saw any writing from that period by him and/or heard any of his plays and never saw any writing from that period then you would think that everyone in England spoke and wrote in that manner. Well there is no audio recording from back then obviously so you have to rely on what other things were written in England during that time. Let them eat cake ! Do you really know who infamously used those words ? Was Cleopatra the whatever really have white skin, black hair and did she really look very beautiful ?
Many current issues in regards to science, how The United States of America was named, many things about it, including what the citizens should be named and the reason why nothing should be named America and why currently that country should not even be named The United States of America is not known by most people. A part of it has to do with the fact that Hawaii became a part of the country. Misleading history about past wars and current wars also doesn’t help. Now historical mentions of alternative history by the far right and by the far left have people currently believing in things that are not true, at worst some of those that are of the centre left and centre right have also been fooled by those people into believing that something is true when it is false or what is true is still unknown. The Hamilton Musical has it that Mister Hamilton was a half cast/of a mixed race, no he was white. Besides no one went around rapping back then. Snow White, The Little Mermaid, even one Charles Dickens story are portrayed by those who are not white now. The original stories were about white people.
Should someone make a story about someone black or about some people who were back and use white people to tell the tale especially if it’s about something that really did happen ? Not if you want a certain degree of historical accuracy. Even a comedy that should never have had an updated version of it is about to start. Originally it was a very funny comedy starring Ruth Cracknell, it was about an old woman with dementia who lived with her son who she drove nuts and about her sometimes visiting bastard dentist son who was two faced and his bitch wife who was a snob. It was an Australian comedy about a white family. The lecherous dentist who was a womanizer reminded me of an Uncle of mine. Anyway in the future there is going to be a politically correct version of it where the mother is white and the family is black. Even if political correctness wasn’t put into it the previews of it are bad and yet Denise Scott playing the main character in the new Mother and Son is usually very funny and a bit rugged/crude. The history of the show will be more remembered by the new version of the original and therefore the future history about the show will be remembered by the buggered up version.
There is also the scary and false version version of Australia’s colonial past in a book named Dark Emu by a guy who pretends to not be white. Al Sharpton, standing next to Joe Biden’s Vice President made a speech at a funeral that some people will think is historically correct. He claimed that the black man who was killed by excessive cops was killed because he was black. He left out that the cops were black, in reality it had nothing to do with race, some cops were just to excessive. That is the problem now, someone white must feel guilty for being white, someone white is privileged, including the homeless white drug addicts who is poor, white is a colour but it’s not thought that a white person is of colour. A white or black cop that murdered someone black is thought to have by default killed that person because he or she was black. It’s wrong to think that way, even the Black Lives Matter group, usually made up mainly by white people, are racist against everyone who is not black. If white people had white history month or week then it would be considered racist by those who are not white. Living white as a TV Show ? White only sport or sport rounds or sport day or a white only team versus others. If that happened in the past where black people and others were deliberately left out then it would be historically racist.
The thing is that things are now based on race, false history, a false present and a false version of what the future will be like. There are even race based organizations, crap about compensating descendants of actual victims, special race based groups such as the proposed race based ‘Voice in Parliament’, race based awards ceremonies and awards, special treatment in some ways based on race and/or racial origin or imagined racial origin. Even the inconclusive result with Lake Mungo Man is not to be further tested because it might be an example of a race here before those who claim to be of the original race in Australia. Maybe they all are of the first race, maybe they aren’t, it will never be known now.