https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/481916-every-record-has-bee...
No, it has been constantly retold. New people have written new histories. They haven't edited other people's histories while continuing to label those histories as the work of the original authors.
What's happening here isn't "our views are changing, so we are producing new material based on those changed views". They are altering existing works written by people who are long dead, without making it clear to the reader/viewer what has been changed.
You are extremely naive. This has happened lots and lots of times.
It's only recently that one of the traditional keepers passed [1]
[1] https://www.magabala.com/collections/david-mowaljarlai
Of course now that the colonisers have reached the lands the sites are under threat from gas plants and industrial development .. but several thousand years was a good run.
You don't think what is true? It's true enough that D.M passed recently (well, recently in my timeline at least).
> There is lots of rock art which either can't be shown to outsiders
You should mention that to the Bradshaw Foundation that paid no heed and invited themsleves to view as much as they could find.
> but the significance behind the art is not allowed to be explained to outsiders.
Those of us that live there know many of the stories .. and not sharing that with outsiders doesn't negate the existence.
> Some rock art can be copied for wider consumption, but the copies have to leave out certain details.
Despite which many have copied and repurposed such art with details despite being asked not to .. eg [1]
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Wandjina-Resurrection_fi...
The major thrust of this sub thread has been about line of original purity more than an obligation for [some group] to openly share to all regardless so forgive me if I still consider these a good example of unaltered works painted on and carved into stone.
For example, some stories are not just 'the stories of particular groups' but are not allowed to be told by, or in some cases told to, other groups.
Besides this, how do you know that none of these works have been painted over or hidden?
Sometime in the last 2000 years, probably the Early Middle Ages, Christian scholars doctored this passage to have Josephus suggest that Jesus was a god, or at least superhuman (even though Josephus was not a Christian believer).
Modern scholarship, including religious scholars, almost unanimously accept the passage as fake. But Christian proselytizers still use it very frequently as extra-biblical confirmation of the divinity of Christ.
> They are altering existing works written by people who are long dead, without making it clear to the reader/viewer what has been changed.
Have you heard of this thing called "the bible"? It's been regularly altered for almost 2000 years without making it clear to the reader/viewer how and why. Yes, that's a hyperbolic point but it's to show that editing of past works is not new. Writings, paintings, stories, etc... have long been edited and referred to as the original.
... in an era where scientific rigor, proper editorial practices, literary science, and indeed the entire humanities in the modern sense didn't exist. That's a laughable comparison.
If anyone tried to publish an "edited" Bible like that today, they would get publicly crucified by scholars.
Anne Frank's diary was published in 1947. It is a historical document very important to the history of the 20th century, critically important if we consider documents accessible to high-school students and widely taught to them. The original version, and all subsequent versions until 1995 (when a reasonably complete version was first made available) as well as the vast majority of current editions, omit certain material.
This includes Anne discussing [the part I removed so as not to hit HN's word filter!]. It also includes material removed by the original editor, Otto Frank (Anne's father) where Anne is critical of her father and discusses her parents' marriage.
In fact, the 1995 edition didn't include all the missing material (some pages removed by Otto were not available, even to scholars. Nor did the 2001 edition which added the pages Otto removed. There was still some censorship of material. Only in 2018 (deep into the "woke era"!) was the full text of Anne's diaries published after 70 years of the diaries being renowned, widely discussed and taught, and quasi-universally regarded as historically important.
My wife is a historian. "Oh, those records were destroyed in 1920 when a new archivist took over and changed the recordkeeping methods" and "oh, the boxes with the stuff between years X and Y were destroyed by bombs in WW2" are common occurrences. Historians understand this and develop methods for dealing with this but we should also understand that the archive is never going to be immutable.
This is not to say that deliberately editing the archive is good, only that it is inevitable for reasons much more banal than what is described in TFA.
There is a reason history ignored certain people, minorities or genders. And adding their point of view is a good thing.
The whole divisive concepts bruhaha is all about returning to the way past was mythologized and made sound better then it actually was.
Perspective is always a thing, but lies are lies.
We should all put as much pressure as possible on elected leaders to ban references to 1984 on the Internet every time there’s government overreach or censorship. It’s a great book and the references are often apt, but they’re incredibly overused and cliché.
Such a law would do a great deal to force people to read or talk about other pertinent books. Call it The BRADBURY Act (Bringing a Reasonable Amount of Different Books… um… Under Review… uh… every Year).
No that overused, it appears. Look at how man replies didn't know what the source material was.
If 1984 and Animal Farm was still required reading in HS, we'd have a very different population. One, I expect, that would be more critical of thoughtcrime and revisionist history than of imaginary boogeymen.
Unfortunately it's so prescient it's no longer helpful to reference it.
Sounds like the people saying "evolution has stopped" for humans, the fact that your living it (by definition) in slow motion because your part of it doesn't mean it has stopped.