Does "History" Get Corrected ? (No Air Content)

There are no straightforward answers to a more important pair of questions: When history is revised or not revised in light of recent discoveries the important question is: Who is deciding pro or con.
Recently, a NASA engineer checked out an original copy of "Principia" and discovered, to his horror, that EVERY PHYSICS BOOK IN AMERICA HAD AN ERROR OF OMISSION. If you were on the internet sites where this was being discussed, the result was disgust and contempt for the closed-minded attitudes of Acadamia. Due to an omission in his translation in the early 30's, Newton's Third Law of Motion was quoted lacking the final paragraph.
Yes, our rockets go up, our ICBM's fly...but what about when you lean against a wall and rest all of your weight against one hand? Using the contemporary unr4evised physics texts, where is the equal and opposite reaction. Although the engineer who discovered that every subsequent author of a physics text had relied on the faulty translation instead of doing his research at the source was dismissed as some kind of troublemaker or weirdo, Acadamia has quietly revised some of the sources that omitted the extremely important wording. Future physics books will be revised properly, but if l;you are a teacher of history or just an interested party I urge you to gather some evidence of this while the texts are still in circulation. It proves the point that has been hinted at above. It also points to who is revising it and their motivation, if you take my point.

Regarding the Maine, the powder magazine obviously exploded. Mine? Torpedo? What about the more likely scenario of somebody, under cover of darkness, placing a small time bomb near the magazine. That would certainly account for the fact of an internal explosion. Next, what about a study of all of the U.S. battleships that had spontaneous magazine explosions? (That was a short list, wasn't it?) The sabotage angle gains more and more credibility.
One more for the X Files.

It is amazing where information can be found. For example, I found out about the Hearst role in that war not in a history class but in a journalism class. I think it supports the idea that events need to be looked at from every angle. There were military events, but those events were caused, in part, by social, political, journalistic and other pressures. As far as what we teach, let's start by accepting that curriculum development is a huge can of worms. In the U.S., the local school board is relying on the curriculum committee (teachers mostly) and the community is relying on the school board. I'm sure that every gyration has been made and will continue to be made to meet the COMMUNITY'S standards. Hmmmm, that is you and me.

[mike_baram]

I saw one show on the Spanish-American War that said that the Maine disaster was in all probability caused by coal dust, heat, and poor ventilation.
All it takes is one spark in a room filled with coal dust. Ever seen what happens when a silo goes "kerblooie"? And that's dust from grain.

[stephen]

>>>>for we know that things are being revised in a more accurate way all the time.

Your faith is admirable.

>>>>If a 'revised' edition of a textbook displays a less favorable, albeit more accurate, picture of the past, it may not sell as well

If historical revision sells at all, it sells first and foremost to the elitist educational establishment and biased TV producers who salivate for such material (no offense, Tim. I'm in the same business!). This is the same clan who tried to convince us that the Nazi's didn't really run concentration camps and that Washington only whipped a bunch of drunks at Trenton, and any number of other intellectual gems. If the free market system is to blame for anything, its for pandering to pointy-headed elitists who can't swallow history without putting their own twist on it.

Opposite extremism has been passing for objectivity in this country for far too long.

[Droops]

All I can say is that, last year, I went to Arlington National Cemetary in Washington DC for the first time. Very close to the Tomb of the Unknowns is a section of the cemetery devoted to the crewmen of the Maine. The mast of the ship is in the center, watching over the many who died there.

These men died in an explostion while serving on a warship. It was a national tragedy. That is one fact that cannot be changed.

John

I believe that National Geographic did a large article with photos, eyewitness accounts, diagrams etc of the Maine incident. Conclusion was a coal bunker explosion.

andy

So now we know the identity of the "elitist educational establishment and biased TV producers ", the people who "tried to convince us that the Nazi's didn't really run concentration camps and that Washington only whipped a bunch of drunks at Trenton" and the "pointy-headed elitists".

Admiral Rickover and the National Geographic.

The truth is out there.

>If historical revision sells at all, it sells
>first and foremost to the elitist educational
>establishment and biased TV producers who
>salivate for such material (no offense, Tim. I'm
>in the same business!). This is the same clan
>who tried to convince us that the Nazi's didn't
>really run concentration camps and that
>Washington only whipped a bunch of drunks at
>Trenton, and any number of other intellectual
>gems. If the free market system is to blame for
>anything, its for pandering to pointy-headed
>elitists who can't swallow history without
>putting their own twist on it.

First of all, artifacts (yes, a ship is an artifact) do not lie. People do. Therefore, written "historical" accounts (often more like propaganda, as in this case), while useful to the historian, cannot be privilaged over physical evidence.

"pointy-headed elitists"

I would like to hear a defination of this term, and how that applies to me, or others studying the same field. During the year, I go to school, and I work. During the summer, I only work. I, along with most others you would label "elitists," are building your houses and mowing your lawns to fund our education, and meet basic living requirements. We are not wealthy "stuck-ups," wearing monicles, walking about our lavish studies spouting quotes from Plato.

>who can't swallow history without
>putting their own twist on it.

Written history already has a "spin" on it. It's been spun by politicians, journalists, and some uncompromising historians, unable to believe all their grand theories may be false. It is the plight of us "elitists" to remove that "spin." Although I can't speak for everyone in my field of study, of the ones I personally know and myself, we only want the facts and nothing else. Our job isn't to shape history, but to unshape it, and let the evidence speak for itself. If you'd rather believe the version spouted by politicians and "yellow journalists" over the years, go right ahead. Just don't get in my way.

I find most of your counter arguments based upon a false logic, and little knowledge of the historical/archaeological scene.

And really, there's no need for name calling. Just state your counterpoint and let it be. Perhaps that's why I keep getting referred to as an "elitist," because I have a good understanding of written American English. I am sorry for this. I suppose proper grammar has it's faults, when used in the social scene.

[stephen]

Stop trying to personalize everything. You were never so much as mentioned and I have no idea what you do for a living. I'm referring to my own vocation as well and said so in my post.

The amazing thing about educational elitists and revisionists is their insistence that only THEY have the objectivity to interpret evidence as it should be viewed. The thousands of historians who came for generations before them were by some miracle all prejudiced, and the fact that they also bring their own bias to the table never crosses their minds. Dare to point out that they, like the historians they criticize, view the world with the inescapable prejudices that life ingrains into a person's mind, and you will be quickly ridiculed as uneducated and illogical.

If we're looking to the educational institutions of America as a bastion of clear, unbiased thinking, then we're all suffering from a self-delusion far worse than anything written by a yellow journalist.