Actually, I was talking about the way authoritarians manipulate history by denying people access to information, but you can shoehorn whatever you want, sure, lots of other people seem to have done so too looking at the downvotes, lol. The truth is what you can prove, not reality. There is proof of the Holocaust, but that is what we are aware of. Lots of other things happening at the time, like the Crimean Tatars goes unnoticed until focus moves there.
I mean ya, sure, I agree they are referring to it in the abstract, but does simply referring to it in the abstract really change the meaning of what he is saying? other than, it allows for one to basically offhand discredit reality and atrocities by insinuating that some shadowy “they” is controlling the global narrative.
No, I mean, I think they’re talking about narratives in the abstract. There was a great deal of debate about this in the early 90s, over the role of historians in creating narratives.
To an extent, yes, but at the same time, I find that a lot of people who started these debates did so out of what I can only describe as an attempt to reconcile their beliefs about the east block and the stories coming out of the region as the soviets started losing control. and in doing so ended up arguing for the same conspiratorial world view that the holocaust deniers employ, in part because these arguments came about in collaboration with holocaust deniers. caugh caugh Chomsky
Maybe in the sense of broader political discussions, but the shift in historical academia towards the importance of narratives and not just facts was very much a reaction to the triumphalist ‘end of history’ mindset of the early 90s. I would also like to note that Chomsky is a linguist, and very much not a historian or anyone with influence on historical academia. despite his… prominent and questionable political following.
Actually, I was talking about the way authoritarians manipulate history by denying people access to information, but you can shoehorn whatever you want, sure, lots of other people seem to have done so too looking at the downvotes, lol. The truth is what you can prove, not reality. There is proof of the Holocaust, but that is what we are aware of. Lots of other things happening at the time, like the Crimean Tatars goes unnoticed until focus moves there.
translated to normal: “I was talking about the way (((they))) manipulate history”
I think you’re being unfair - I legitimately think they’re talking in the abstract here.
I mean ya, sure, I agree they are referring to it in the abstract, but does simply referring to it in the abstract really change the meaning of what he is saying? other than, it allows for one to basically offhand discredit reality and atrocities by insinuating that some shadowy “they” is controlling the global narrative.
No, I mean, I think they’re talking about narratives in the abstract. There was a great deal of debate about this in the early 90s, over the role of historians in creating narratives.
To an extent, yes, but at the same time, I find that a lot of people who started these debates did so out of what I can only describe as an attempt to reconcile their beliefs about the east block and the stories coming out of the region as the soviets started losing control. and in doing so ended up arguing for the same conspiratorial world view that the holocaust deniers employ, in part because these arguments came about in collaboration with holocaust deniers. caugh caugh Chomsky
Maybe in the sense of broader political discussions, but the shift in historical academia towards the importance of narratives and not just facts was very much a reaction to the triumphalist ‘end of history’ mindset of the early 90s. I would also like to note that Chomsky is a linguist, and very much not a historian or anyone with influence on historical academia. despite his… prominent and questionable political following.
it’s not even the shift towards narratives that is the issue with the reasoning of the guy I was responding to, but instead the conspiratorial framing