Monday, February 11, 2008
The "Victors [Don't] Write the History [Anymore]"
"History is written by the victors." Like so many things we know, it often isn't true, particularly now.
When the old "insight" regarding victors writing history is uttered now, it's likely to be a negative
reference to America's historical success and a thinly veiled sympathy for past tyranny. Instead of a fairly wise truism – which the saying initially was – it has become just another bloated whine by pompous intellectuals with axes to grind against the success of a free society. Nowhere is this more evident than in America's victory over the Soviet Union after the Cold War (which often wasn't so "cold").
If one watches recent Hollywood movies, attends college classes, reads popular non-fiction, or reads the required texts in a college or public school, it may appear that "the victor" over Soviet expansion is writing more in tune with the sentiments of the defeated than those who won the war against oppressive communist prison states.
Among those in the West who write, read, and discuss history; the commentary, observations, and quotations aren't likely to be those of a proud victor but the stale cliché rants of a disgruntled intellectual class. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are best-selling authors and wildly seen as legitimate historians. Part of their status as best-selling writers stems from the fact that they are required reading in many classrooms. In Europe, it's virtually impossible to find popular or scholarly sources that write history from the standpoint of the victors. The cruel, oppressive, and ruthless governments bred in Marx's name are lauded for their attempts to create paradise by eliminating business, property, "greed" and, in essence, human nature. In the end we are left with an odd anomaly of history -- history being written by those sympathetic to the defeated. This historically unique concept is made even more bizarre by the fact that the systems defeated were by any practical observation, terrible systems imposed on humanity. To even suggest that the world would be a better place had America been defeated by the Soviet Union defies all rational thinking, but rational thinking isn't what the argument is about. A resurrected radical relativism now allows the modern scholar to vent their authoritarian socialist sympathies with renewed vigor, going so far as to render wise old sayings (one example being the topic of this commentary) irrelevant.
Of course, even the wise old saying suggests that there really is not a good or bad side to a conflict, only a victor who can later write that they are good (hat tip to Nietzsche and his spawn). If we could only be so fortunate to read history as the Nazis or Soviets would have told it. We could then hear of the their triumph over the dark forces of decadent capitalist bourgeoisie civilization and the glories of an all-consuming state dedicated to "the people." Do we really think that, had Nazi Germany won in WWII, that their philosophy would have become true because they said so in their history (of course, in a dictatorship, no alternative views would even be permitted). Conversely, can a sane or just person really say that a positive appraisal of America and its allies' defeat of Nazism and communism was just a reflection of America's position as victor?
History and historical events are not relative The Nazis were evil, the Nazis were wrong (unless one sees genocide as a mere "point of view") and no matter which side had won the great confrontation with them or wrote about that confrontation, the underlying truth of their evil would remain self-evident to civilized and moral people. This is just as true regarding America's triumph over the horrid philosophy of gulag "equality" – communism. Of course, had the Soviets won the Cold War, there likely wouldn't have been much historical perspective written from the defeated's viewpoint.
Today, the nonsense continues. Even if America and its allies are successful in anchoring open society in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will no doubt not read of people being freed from tyranny (the "victor's version"), we'll hear, read,and continue to see historians' versions where an evil "imperial hegemon" attacked innocent dictators "for oil."
Observers in the Victor's country may "write the history" but there's no guarantee that their view will reflect any degree of loyalty to their winning side.
The victors may have the edge on "writing the history" but in a free society those who ultimately write and discuss it may concoct anything they choose. If they're leftists and free society has been the victor, the victor will be cast as evil and the defeated heroic. In conflicts between America's open society and brutal dictatorships, the left will always side with the latter.
Philosopher kings won't be happy until they get their crown and allegiance to their ideologies, and the writing of history now seems to care little for who has been victorious over genuine evil.
