Biased Literature

[kokopelle]

X-posted from a pagancentric LJ group... the original question was about the sourcing of medieval texts on paganism. The majority (all?) of the texts referenced were written by Christian authorities. The incredible irony of this struck me. I replied with the following.

I am reminded that history is written by the victors. While the Christian slant is of historical interest, it is slanted to a point that I would wonder about it's true relevancy. As the mate and friend of modern day witches, I know their behavior has little resemblance to the remarks of their modern day detractors.

The History Channel recently aired the show, "Hell: The Devil's Domain". The show touched on the 1980s outcry against Satanic cults mind washing members and sacrificing all manner of animals/people. The topic was fuel for the fire of those who believed that Satan was alive and well in the world. Much of the "testimony" was accredited to "recovered memories" of adults or the testimony of children. Subsequent investigations by the likes of the FBI could find no organized cults. Wikipedia has a good article on this phenomenon.

This only happened a handful of decades ago. While it was largely disproved in our lifetimes, who is to say that future generations won't pick up the books written about the Satanic cult abuse and believe them to be fact? And, consider that those who have a vested interest in Satanic cults being around probably continue to talk and write about the phenomenon even though much of their source material is no longer universally supported.

Reading this again makes me wonder how much of "history" is true. Now, the real question is, what is true history? It strikes me that most of historical writings border on fiction. The challenge with writing "history" is that any author has a bias. The result of their writings will reflect their view of the world. The sincere Christian will write that Pagans are of the Devil. The sincere Pagan will completely disagree. Both are accurate from their own perspective. Another thing to consider is that a historical book must be published. Those in the control of the machineries of publication must approve the book. Pressure is applied to the author to modify their bias to that of the publisher. Does this happen in the writing of history texts? Of course. Consider that history textbooks must be approved by school boards with their own beliefs and agendas. With these pressures, there are modern examples of history textbooks that approach fictional status by the exclusion or coloring of historical interpretation. Did the medieval authors have any more freedom in their publications? History is truly written by the victors, or as a fellow LJ person punned, the vicars.

More bad-news, good-news about human nature for my soul. Seek your own histories. Validate your own realities. Don't rely on others to serve your harmonious interests.

$.02 (clink)

Comments

"Spin Doctors"

[wulfwalker.livejournal.com]

One of the oldest examples of this would be the Roman Historian accounts of the Druids. Since it has been widely accepted that theirs was an oral versus a written tradition/faith/history, most of the information that still exists referencing them was by their "conquerors". More of concern to me is the current societal need (in this country)to be politically correct even regarding past history, and our not so distant past is being revised/scrubbed...Here in the South we don't call it the civil war, we call it the War of Northern Agression. as a child my Dad was in the military and I found myself bouncing up and down the east coast of the US, it was almost schizophrenic the two disparate views on causes and motivations leading to that conflict. whew, that was a hell of a segue..

[valkyriur.livejournal.com]

Good post.

[iskender.livejournal.com]

As I've said before, objective truth is probably a flawed concept, but truth is not. Taking multiple narratives, one can form a composite narrative.

Think of it like echoes. Using three microphones, one can triangulate the source and nature of the original sound. Likewise, given enough professional works of history, all with their own biases, we can logically create some workable image of the past.

Is it true? Only as much as anything else is. It serves for the moment. But it's not arbitrary.

Arguing history's not really the matter. You either believe that there is such a thing as the material universe, or you don't. I do, and therefore I believe that knowledge is possible.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

Good answer... here are some philosophical questions.

#1
Objective truth... 9 out of 10 Evangelical Christians would have the multiple narrative that Wiccans worship the Devil, complete with all the details (who, what, where, when, etc.). 9 out of 10 Wiccans have the multiple narrative that they don't worship the Devil, or even acknowledge the Devil is real. This asks the question... who's multiple narrative do we listen to? Who's mutiple history can be excluded? If there are more Christians than Wiccans, do the Christians win? How does the religous historian approximate the triangulation of history non-abitrary fact?

#2
What is the function of the study of history?

Stepping out on that slippery slope

[wulfwalker.livejournal.com]

Uhmmm, (she raises Her hand tentatively) to learn from the past?
Shrugs and then then defiantly states: "A great philosopher once said: He who cannot remember the past is condemned to repeat it."

[iskender.livejournal.com]

Wulfwalker's right. Not knowing one's species' history is as dangerous as not knowing one's own.

And you're not talking about history. You're talking about metaphysics. Christians don't have a narrative that Wiccans worship the devil. They believe that they do. That's a worldview, not a history.

Taking a bunch of narratives is taking a sample. And like any sample, there can be selection bias. But that doesn't invalidate the task itself. If I ask the opinions of one region and ignore those of another, there's sample bias. It doesn't mean that an answer can't be found. Likewise, if you restrict your historical work to one group with common biases, you're going to taint your findings. But that's an error in execution, not in the goals itself.

So your scenario for #1 is flawed. It's not history. The conflict can be resolved, but not in the way I mentioned, through composite truth. It can be resolved through normal logic. If you believe in burden of proof, than the Christian argument asks more of those who would accept it. Therefore, they must show that the devil exists and that he is worshipped by the names of pagan gods, or some variant. They probably can't, and so you award the Wiccans with the argument but not truth, because disproving something doesn't mean proving something else.

But again, that's not what I was saying, so let me try and prevent that tangent before it is followed much farther.

I'd say look at the Crusades, if you want an example. For hundreds of years we had totally different views of the Crusades--one posited that the Crusaders went to protect the Holy Land from the Muslim invaders and another stated that the Crusaders came for one reason and one reason only--plunder. Neither was at all true, and because both were such strong views, they tended to annihilate each other when first compared. Because the more extreme versions of the story could not co-exist, they were all re-examined, and a lot of facts came out that blurred the story and made it more human, less dualistic, and more accurate.

Now you might say that such history still discounted some views. And yes, yes it did. You have to draw the line somewhere. And that's a big grey area. Whose ideas are valid and whose are not? But that's like saying that, because you have to throw out some warped boards, you shouldn't build a house out of wood. We don't deal in absolutes, but that doesn't mean that everything is abstract. History is like science. It's all too easy to find history and science wanting because they don't offer that certainty that is so comforting in religion. Find it wanting, but don't dismiss it. History and science are flawed attempts at knowledge, this is true, but history and science answer the prayers of their followers.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

I was wondering if you would catch me mixing metaphors. I knew you would. Good answers. I would like to make a personal observation that much of history, or at the very least the interpretation of history, is based on common biases. Well, maybe one just needs to separate politics from history. Is this truly possible???

[iskender.livejournal.com]

Most history is shit, or has been. You're right on that point. Look up Whig history, for example. Most history has been written by individuals with no formal training, and that's a curse as well as a blessing. Look at the Greeks, too. They passed off legends as their own observations. History is not an exact science, never has been, and never will be. But we can improve it. There is better history and worse history. It is like mapmaking--equal parts literature and science.

As far as separating politics from history? It's not possible and not even desirable. And even it were a good thing, it would change nothing. Holding political opinions, or goals, is not the same as having a political bias. You can believe in almost any system in the world and still be fair--but the moment you start to see the world as inherently favoring your system, you have lost all credibility. I have political opinions. I like some level of democracy, for example. But is history a story of democracy, or a story that proves the validity of democracy? Some would say so. I do not. And that, I think, makes me fair. I believe some systems are better than others but that is a human and individual choice, not a statement about what is and what has been. Human history does not lead in any directions, no matter how much I would like it to.

Anyway, to answer your question simply. What is politics? It is all that concerns the acquisition, justification, and discharge of power. Remove that from history and history grows very dull. Remove all wars, all cultural movements, all revolutions, all economic development, every crime and every act of law... What would you have left? History must chart politics, while it keeps itself clean of politics. History is like a vulture--it must deal in blood and yet stay clean. If the vulture avoids blood altogether, it will starve, and so does the historian who stays totally apolitical.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

Excellent. Thank you!

[iskender.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. I hope I don't come off as too authoritarian in this. My tone, which does not come across in text, is less that of the absolutist philosopher, explaining "The Truth" in grave commandments, and more that of a fellow craftsman, explaining how one might build a bookshelf or birdhouse.

History is very important, but it is no more magical than a pistol or a birdhouse. It is a tool, crafted by human hands. I hope I don't sound like some priest. My philosophy of history comes not from any special insight and more from basic familiarity. I'm more like a storyteller than a prophet, regardless of how vain I sound in my categorical announcements.

[wulfwalker.livejournal.com]

so does that mean that politics and religion are the same? each are a series of statements concerning a consolidated group of peoples beliefs or desires.

[iskender.livejournal.com]

There's significant overlap. I guess the difference is that not all religions seek political power, but if a religion becomes large enough, it will gain political importance no matter what it preaches. Similarly, a religion which is small enough can avoid all political significance.

But what is politics? In the above statements I mean, of course, the machinations of state and society. But if we use the term inclusively, taking in, for example, the sense expressed in the phrase "office politics," then politics is present in all religion, and all families, even, all relationships--because power is present in all of them.

But just because politics may exist in religion does not mean that the two are the same. Politics is a phenomenon, religion is too. They act similarly and add similar importance to issues. I don't know--I'd say that politics is more essential. Politics is present in all religion, because all religion is social, and even if you believe religion can be solitary, there is still a goal of self-overcoming, thus increasing of one's power, and that's political too. But not all politics is religious.

So they may have an overlap, but I think that the fact that some issues may be political without being religious proves that the two are distinct.

[redqueenmeg.livejournal.com]

Nice icon ;)

[greensh.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm... I got it from somebody with impeccable taste. They must have taste to use an ATHF icon!