>>>>>>>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?
>
>We have no evidence that it has. <s>

Actually that is not true. There are historical documents which show when some groups destroyed the documents (written history) of other groups. Now, if you could only visit the Vatican library that would be a good place to start... :o)