History is a terrible judge.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Speaking of important people, I am reminded of an oft-repeated and wholly invalid principle that time gives us the perspective needed to judge things in a more complete fashion. How this foolishness ever gains credibility is beyond me. It seems to me that in the throes of contemporary events, we are keenly aware of the puppet-nature of mankind, how leaders are driven more than the drivers, and how a multitude of competing influences form and shape a history beyond any conscious or deliberate efforts of single individuals or groups thereof.

The truth is, however, that time is a terrible game of informational attrition. Each passing day sees the fading of countless reams of data and knowledge and memory. As time passes, we get dumber, and to think that historians can levy judgment in any accurate sense with naught but scraps of records and paper is silly. Why do we think this? Why do we even recognize in our own lives this truth, yet ascribe all wisdom to the horribly broken enterprise of history?

It is really rather a terribly circular way of looking at things: those things that don't disappear are the "most important", and the "most important" things are those that happen to survive. Otherwise, why would anyone keep them? We know the answer... our historical record is the product of happenstance. A series of accidents and near-misses. Most of it gets burned up in fires, or soaked by waters, or deteriorated by time and must and fungus. And so we dig and we find a piece of pottery and proclaim, "Here lies the answer!"

Silliness. History is a waste of time. More than that, history is a fiction.

Comments

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Speaking of important people, I am reminded of an oft-repeated and wholly invalid principle that time gives us the perspective needed to judge things in a more complete fashion.

I think we tend to memorialize people after they die because they are no longer in a position to embarrass or injure us.