>>>>>>>>>RIP Howard Zinn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/28zinn.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He probably did more damage in more history departments than anyone else I can think of and his propagandistic presentation of "history" was like crack for those who got their politics from Holywood stars and John Lennon songs, but he really believed in what he did and lived a good life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I only met him once, in the 60s, but I liked him. He was on the right side of a lot of things that mattered. A terrible historian, but a good man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But, of course, this assumes that history is knowable as a set of objective facts. I come more and more to the conclusion that history is the subjective interpretation of a combination of factual events, presumed events, assumed events and imagined events all combined and then explained as a story through time, a sequence of causes and effects, which itself can fall foul of the narrative fallacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To some extent, history belongs to the winners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is not a matter of ownership. The losers have a history of their own to tell but the winners don't (want to) hear it. In any case, it is not about winners or losers. It is about subjectivity and interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Except when the winners destroy all historical evidence of anything other than their version...
>>>>
>>>>Has it ever happened?
>>>
>>>The burning of the library of Alexandria
>>>Jewish community in Zelów
>>>Diego de Landa and the Mayan language
>>>Assyrian empire
>>>
>>>The list could go on and on...
>>
>>
>>And yet since you know then all evidence has apparently not been lost.
>
>In some cases we know civilizations or groups existed, but not much more other than that.

Of course this is true (and I was just kidding since you said "all evidence") Sometimes the loser's side of the story has been eradicated

But also consider that especially in culturally asymmetric conflicts we sometimes only know of the real sins of the winners because of exposure by some on the winning side. The losers become ennobled, when in fact the back story of their own sins have been interred with their bones ( "so let it be with Caesar" <bg> )

While some cultures may see "full disclosure" or investigative journalism a thing to be desired or at least some parts of the society may hold such aspirations, others may find the whole concept foreign, or have very little interest in any kind of record beyond mythic saga or altered photographs on top of Lenin's tomb.

The Germans kept records (through cultural OCD rather than a desire to expiate guilt) , the Khmer Rouge didn't (in their case because part of the goal was to kill everyone who could read and write). Had their atrocities happened 2000 years ago, we'd have a much clearer idea of what the Germans did.

If a pyramid of skulls is built in the forest and no one see it, did it really happen ?