History is written by the winners -- dumb phrase?

Asked by: Adam2isback
  • It implies the existance of denial

    What this phrase implies is that a country purposely hides their bad history, when the opposite is true. In Britain, Denmark, Israel, former colonial powers, the history books are OPENLY laced with bigoted language. And they brag about their empire. There is no deliberate attempt to hide anything. The people are OPEN about their bigotry. Period.

    That's why the phrase is stupid.

  • Absolutely, This is quite a fallacy.

    "History is written by victors. " is a phrase that is buffoonish at best and genocide regime apologetic at worst. At surface, It sounds like a sentimental line at first, But once you go in-depth, You get to see why it's complete bovine excerment.

    To make it short, History is written by historians, And there will be multiple perspectives on events. For example, One country is gonna see events in a different light than other country. That being said, Victor or not, Each country is gonna push their narrative. Very few things can be considered universal.

    What adds to the nonsense is that this phrase cannot be applied to such things like wars that ended with stalemates. If history is written by victors, Then who the flying f**k is writing about wars that ended in stalemates?

    It's also a very situational, Because I frequently hear it during ww2 discussions, But NEVER in something like Vietnam War and a lot of sources about Vietnam War are written by American, You know, The side that lost. Something doesn't add up. And lets not get started on how a lot of ww2 myths come from nazies themselves, Also the side that lost.

    Unfortunately, This phrase often translates to "I'm mad that my side hasn't won" and considering that its often about ww2, It is quite uncomfortable. It's also often used to downplay atrocities of Axis in order to make them look better.

  • Yes, Its dumb.

    From my experience, Especially from where I live in, Many people I know believe that phrase is so true that it makes them stupid. It's not wrong to say that they wrote history from their perspective, But it's not right to say it is always in half truth or it isn't what happened. This is why history books can be rewritten if there is any inaccuracies in it.

  • Oh it absoutely is

    From my experience its usually a massive red flag that the person saying this is either a neo nazi or a conspiracy theorist. If you don't believe me just go into the comment section of any video about ww2 and you'll see this qoute usually followed by anti semitism and nazi apolgism. No respected historian says this and its important in their to stay as unbiased as possible. Despite the americans winning the iraqi war is still met with disapporval and despite beating the native americans the actions of the american are still viewed as heinious and disgraceful. If you see anyone utter this quote show them a history book becuase the odds are it'll bd the first history (or overall) book they've ever read.

  • No. History can be rewritten.

    While early records of historical events are influenced by the people that wrote it down, later versions can be written by historians with different biases. Only when original sources are destroyed can historical records be corrupted. When original sources remain, 'neutral' historians can revisit the events and write about them from a different perspective. In the information age destroying information has become very difficult.

  • Yes its completely a dumb phrase....

    Its because every winner has a story behind his/her win which will be very much full of struggle.They also have got misery and defeat many times but the only difference in them is that even after falling they didn't give up and stood up to reach their destination.We can take example of Abraham lincoln,former president of US. So its not so that history is full of about winners because they have also got many defeats.

  • Not necessarily dumb but inaccurate

    History might be written by the victor at times but what becomes historical record is what makes the best story, This is however not the case for anthropology and similar disciplines where evidence writes the history books. Even in modern time as we record historic events the accounts are often not factual.

  • The government that wins teaches its side.

    Most of us get are education in school. And schools are run by the government. The government tells the schools what to teach. And this is how we are influenced. But glory be to the internet we are able to get more sides of the story because the freedom of information over the web.
    But i would largely to government controls what we get taught. Like I live in Quebec and the government requires that we learn the French side of the history. And We dont really get taught the english in highschool.

  • No it's not.

    For example, the founding fathers of the U.S. When they signed the Declaration of Independence, the literally committed treason. They also allied themselves with France, a country that was at war with Britain at the time. Had we lost the Revolutionary War, instead of being honored as our nations leaders, they would have been hung as traitors to their country.
    Look at WWII, if Germany had won, do you think Hitler would be looked at as a monster? No, he would have been considered a great hero of Germany.
    Seeing that it is the winner of conflicts who is held on high, it is his word that others listen to and not the one he defeated.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.