Herstory: part of the rest of history

 

     "Her story" is a supplement of the traditional "his story" or history. It is a matter of restoring what is missing.

     "History is written by the winners". There are a lot of excellent articles, and blogs, available about how history is there to be learned from -- or ignoring history means to repeat it -- or other related topics about the importance of history in making decisions for the present to prepare for the future. An excellent topic and I may write about it some day. But this is not that blog.

     In order to chronicle every single event that occurs in all of our lifetimes, it would be necessary to double the amount of time available. We would spend one half of the time documenting the other half. Although many of our various global national security agencies monitor (legally or illegally) and document our conversations, messages, program watching habits, books checked out, and so forth, they have neither the time nor the resources to examine all of them. They use algorithms to narrow down what they look at (accurately or not, relevant or not). One gains privacy only by being totally uninteresting.

     The point of the previous paragraph is that any history that is written will be incomplete. History is written by the winners is an accurate split of accounts of war. Winners write the primary histories and their "side" will be uplifted and the opposition downgraded. Commanding officers will be given the largest portion of credit (or blame) while the many ordinary fighting (and dying) soldiers may not even get a name on their grave.

     If an extraterrestrial alien obtained one of our history books, they would get a very sad view as much of history in textbooks are concerned with battles and war. Alas, there is rarely a period of time when a war is NOT going on so there is plenty of material. But what about all of those people who are NOT at war, who are living on a regular, day-to-day, basis? Very hard to find in the history textbooks. They just weren't "important enough" to keep track of.

     Emphasis on wars and battles from the viewpoint of the "winners". Concentration on the political, economic, and military elite. There is so much of life that is left unwritten in the typical history textbook.

     And this is while we make the (rarely true) assumption that history, that has succeeded in being written down, does accurately reflects that small slice of life being recorded. History has the danger of being rewritten at all times. Sometimes deliberately to hide what people would prefer to not be remembered. Sometimes accidentally through destruction of records and witnesses. But in all cases, due to the incompleteness of the histories, so much is not recorded that one can only see the rest of life in the shadows of those of whom the light is shone upon.

     So, what gets eliminated the most often? The poor, the non-dominant ethnic and religious groups, and the very existent but denigrated segments of population. Archaeologists are thrilled to come up with exciting old sarcophagi with jewels or the burial chambers of ancient rulers because those are the finds that generate sufficient excitement to obtain funding for further excavations. But historians are even more excited when evidence of, and material pertaining to, the excluded people are found. These masses -- composing the overwhelming majority of the population -- are the ones who really make life continue and, yet, so little is known about them from different ages and societies.

     The fact that history books, and classes, are incomplete (of necessity and of deliberation) is the reason why excluded segments work hard to get supplemental materials added to school and college curriculum and included as a part of our general knowledge of our history. In the case of the often excluded roles, actions, and events concerning women, such additions are sometimes called "herstory". These concentrate on "her story" rather than "his story". There are books, and classes, that concentrate on other denigrated segments such as the First Nation people within the US, Ainu in Japan, aborigines in Australia, and so forth all over the world, the many waves of immigrants into the US, and so forth.

     If one looks at these supplemental works, and courses, it is easy to say "these are not accurate" -- because they are, like mainstream history texts, incomplete. Because their focus is different from the mainstream histories which are widely available throughout the population, these supplemental materials can make people uncomfortable when they are presented with information of which they had been uninformed. Often there is a reaction to suppress this information which as been neglected over the years -- but this does not make that neglected information false.

     History is written by the winners about those people, and events, that those in power deem important. But there is so very much more to life than just that.

Traditional: All in the time slice

 

     I have had my hair short. I have had my hair long. Once upon a time, I had more hair. But, I am a traditionalist. My great-great-uncle had his hair long in a ponytail and a beard that went below his waist (he would have given ZZ Top a run for the money). So, as a traditionalist, I am presently having my hair (what is left of it) long. My beard. Well, it just isn't amenable to growing that long -- I guess I missed out in the gene pool.

     At times, people use the word "traditional". What they mean (whether they acknowledge it or not) is "traditional since some date in their past". That date might be over a thousand years ago. It might be as of when they had their first Thanksgiving meal at their home as a new family thirty years ago.

     There are many who might say that having short hair is the traditional, expected, fashion in men's hair. Yet, this has only been the usual thing since about the time of Woodrow Wilson (early 1900s). Before that, hair fashion for men was in flux. Some had long hair like my great-great-uncle, more had shoulder length hair. If you look at a photo of the Lincoln - Douglas debates (1858), you will see Lincoln with short hair and Douglas with shoulder length hair. In the crowds, you will see fully shaved men as well as full beards and mutton chops and handle-bar mustaches.

     Go back another century and you have the "Founding Fathers" with ponytails in their youth and very short hair as older adults (to allow easier donning of their powdered wigs for formal occasions). Once you get into the 1800s and before, however, you primarily have documentation of the wealthier, more newsworthy, people and their living habits. What the majority of working folk wore and did was located primarily in family albums, journals, and diaries.

     Of course, tradition doesn't just apply to fashion. Our family has a special Christmas morning meal. Why? Because my wife had such. Why did she have such? because her grandmother had such. When did it start? Who knows? Or small variations. We had a tradition of opening ONE present on Christmas Eve? Why? When? Does your family have traditions whose origins are unknown?

     Occasionally a family will state explicitly "we're starting a new tradition"! But most traditions just occur out of habits -- and some traditions will be solidified into societal expectations. One of my uncles supported his mother, father, and (as I remember) four siblings through the Great Depression by being a barber. Sometimes he was paid in chickens, eggs, or a slab of bacon but all was useful to the family. During that period of US history, males would do their very hardest to have a short haircut, a shaven face, and a hat. They would use any money they had for that before paying for a meal. Tradition was something to hold onto tightly during the Great Depression and traditions often become tightly held societal requirements during times of great stress, wars, or economic depression.

     Note that I speak only about the men. Women have, and had, their own traditions but I haven't delved into those enough to talk about them well. Sometimes, especially within family traditions, the traditions will be in common. However, traditions are always "since ..." whether it is recognized or not.

The USSR and Eastern Europe: A personal historical perspective

 

     I debated writing this blog entry as I prefer to stay away from topics that would be considered political (though I have found that there is nothing that cannot be considered political by someone). My blogs have moved away from the technology explanation motif (primarily because of lack of feedback as to what areas were of interest) but the core reason of a desire to improve communication still exists -- and that is what I am trying to foster with this post.

     There is NO justification for Putin's invasion of Ukraine -- particularly with the focus on the civilian population and infrastructure. But there can be a certain degree of understanding.

     Back in 1987 (35 years ago now), I visited the Soviet Union with particular concentration on the Moscow, Leningrad/St. Petersburg, and Latvia (Riga) areas. This was in the latter days of the Soviet Union when "glasnost" was being heavily promoted by the Soviet government but the citizens still only half-believed it. A certain degree of highly-supervised, and watched, coordination between Soviet groups and external organizations was being encouraged with the hopes of eventual mutually beneficial exchanges. I was part of such an outreach.

     Note that Vladimir Putin was part of the KGB during this period of time.

     Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg had many wonderful aspects -- and a few not quite so wonderful -- but I cannot claim to have any significant insight into what was/was not going on there. Many others in the world certainly have more useful contributions. I will say that the tentative balancing act of believing/not-believing in "glasnost" was definitely present within the citizens of those regions.

     However, visitation of Riga and the Latvian countryside gave much more information and insight. The groups in Latvia were more willing to be open -- probably because they felt they had much more to gain and a little less to lose. The beaches near Riga were not open to human use because of pollution. And the discussions, that we had there, laid bare the reality that Latvia (and Estonia and Lithuania) were used as expendable regions where central authorities in the Russian regions could locate heavy industry which had more severe environmental impact. Although I had no direct experience with other countries in Eastern Europe, it is good to recall that Chernobyl, and its problems, is located in Ukraine.

     It is difficult to understand the mindset between the primary area of Russia and that of the satellite regions of the Soviet Union without discussion of the "fifth line" (pyatny linov). All Soviet citizens had an internal passport and, on the fifth line of that internal passport, was "nationality". Being Jewish was considered a "nationality". There may have been other non-geographic nationalities also used but I have no personal knowledge of that. My Russian language tutor (of Jewish heritage) had been "fifth lined" out of Leningrad. The Soviets eliminated unemployment by making it illegal -- but that didn't mean that there weren't people who did not have jobs. Job or no job, it was still necessary to have income to live within the Soviet Union. Thus my professor's, and her husband's, emigration.

     The "fifth line" was used in various ways within the Soviet Union. One large way was within quota systems for various organizations and academic institutions. Such places had strict quotas based upon how many of each "nationality" would be permitted beyond the Russian fifth-lined citizens (rarely affected by quota). Belarus had a somewhat favored secondary status with larger quotas but all non-Russian "nationalities" were kept lower in proportion to those of official "Russian" nationality. There was a certain tendency for people to try to marry others of "Russian" nationality so that their children could have a "Russian" fifth line.

     Thus, non-Russian citizens were kept in less influential proportions to that of Russian citizens of the Soviet Union. And their geographical origins (in Eastern Europe, as said earlier I have no direct knowledge of behavior in other areas of the Soviet Empire) were used as expendable areas. These "buffer" areas could, and were, used in ways that was not desired in the primary Russian area of the Soviet Union.

     But, an even greater use of this expendable buffer region was as a Russian-controlled buffer between the Soviet Union and the non-Soviet-controlled countries. Russia could use these countries as as a buffer boundary and could locate military and other defenses within them. NATO countries could be directly bordered without direct exposure of Russian soil.

     And that is a large goal of this invasion. A territory to possess and use and provide closer access to NATO regions without direct exposure to the Russian central areas. If the infrastructure or countryside is destroyed in the process, it is not important. That is not the primary goal.

     And, as has been pointed out by some apologists who want to find a justification for the invasion, it is also why Russia does not want any countries bordering it to be part of NATO. It wants that expendable buffer. If guaranteed to not be part of NATO then some of that fear might ease -- but does not provide Ukraine the security they deserve.

Plots: The high and low points of life

 

     Have you ever picked up a book about a favorite character and said "what a lot of things that happened to this person!"? Maybe you have watched a movie and said to yourself "if they had only done this one (probably very reasonable) thing then the next hour of activity would never have happened"? Or the "if they had only used 'common sense' the story would not have occurred"?

     The reality is that most people live ordinary lives -- lives where many things happen to make one day progress to the next -- where it might be possible to use a rubber stamp in a journal rather than having to jot down the whole day. But people typically do NOT write down everyday happenings. They note "special" occasions -- a wedding, a vacation, a birth, a first step (lots of first steps happen all the time -- but it can still be a miraculous first step for each individual), etc. In fact, people write down such ordinary days so seldom (or, if they do, don't keep them around) that it is a real find for an archeologist to recover such.

     What was a "typical" day for a serf in thirteenth-century France? What did a queen do throughout the day in 17th century Netherlands? What did a person of the Iroquois nation do on a winter day? Life may seem boring, and habitual, to the person living it at the time but armchair adventures can be exciting to someone reading about the everyday happenings of a different culture, place, or time.

     In history, we normally learn about (often from only one point of view) big, "important", events -- and they are important. They are also only a very small slice of what has actually gone on with the various billions of people who live, and have lived, on the planet. If we ever invented a "time machine" (for many reasons, likely a very bad idea), the person would probably want to be able to speed up through sleeping periods, restroom breaks, and most of the events of each day.

     And so it is with books, stories, and movies (and podcasts and other media). I would never want to be within 100 yards of some of the detectives (amateur or professional) that I read about. The odds of something happening to me would increase tremendously. Yet, I continue to read them (invoking the "suspension of disbelief" often needed while reading fiction) because I know that it MIGHT have happened to SOMEBODY at some time. It may be incredible but it isn't truly unbelievable (even though, originally, those words meant about the same thing). "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" -- Arthur Conan Doyle narrating as Sherlock Holmes.

     Or take a "soap opera" -- or daytime serial. Having all the things occurring to a particular person, or family, as it occurs in constant procession is so unlikely statistically that it would be much better to buy a dozen lottery tickets. "Reality" programs on television may portray potentially real activities, events, and achievements -- but they're rarely (if ever) packaged up so nicely in someone's daily life. The movie "The Truman Show" lets the viewer take part in the every day of someone -- but I'll bet they arranged a number of events per day to allow a little adrenaline to flow.

     A book about the life of someone who lived in Roman times might be of interest to people. A book about the life of "Joe Neighbor" who lived an ordinary life and wasn't noted for much would have a very difficult time finding readers. This is why books are about things that happen rather than things that just occur. There needs to be a plot to make it different from all of the things that happen all the time.

     Does this apply to personal life also -- not just "recorded life"? I think so. Although there are certainly cultural differences that make a huge difference in approach. Japanese "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down" versus the US "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". A person who gets noticed will be thought about. In one culture, the positive attention will be associated with being a team player who can consistently be relied upon -- while in the other the positive attention may come from being outspoken with individual contributions.

     Unfortunately, just like in a novel, a person will get noticed for negative actions also. If you strive to be noticed for positive actions then not only will you be thought of but those who work with you will want to continue to work with you.

     In meetings, affirm and attribute contributions -- add to others' comments but make sure they get primary credit. Just doing what you should be doing will fall into the same "plotless" situation as an everyday journal. But people being aware of consistent reliability and responsibility is good. Listen well before speaking.

     Be assertive but stay away from aggression (many have great difficulty understanding the difference between the two). Both will get you attention, but your peers will appreciate assertiveness much more than aggression. Once again, attitudes towards groups will affect the way people are perceived. A member of one group may be perceived as aggressive while the very same behavior of someone in another group may be perceived as assertive. Life is messy.

Fahrenheit 451 : Levels of censorship

     I just finished listening to the audiobook for Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I read a dozen, or more, books each month but I have to listen to books (for obvious reasons) when I am driving. In the set of CDs in the audiobook, there was an afterword where the narrator relayed Ray Bradbury's thoughts and writings about some of the motivations for the book as well as some views about types of censorship. These items jogged my thoughts as I rrecognized that there certainly is not just ONE form of censorship. They follow the range from self-censorship to George Orwell's Newspeak from 1984.

Self-censorship. Everyone censors their own reading. There is no alternative. There are between 600,000 to a million books published (many self-published nowadays) each year. I read a lot. Some people read more. But, no one could possibly read every book. How do we censor? First, of course, we are not aware of all of those 100s of thousands of books. Maybe we encounter, or a friend talks about, or we see a reference to, a few thousand books a year (some of us much fewer, others more). Of those, some are interested in only a few topics, others many. Maybe we don't like (or do like) the cover or flyleaf. Maybe we have a favorite author -- or someone we refuse to read. At any rate, from those million books, I choose 130 or so to read each year (my wife reads more).

Community censorship. This is likely to be the type of censorship that most people think about. A group of people in a town come together and decide that some book is not something they want others to easily read -- so they try (or succeed) to force the local library/bookstore to not carry the book. Or a CD. Or a Podcast. The community can encompass a neighborhood, an ethnic group, a city, a state, or even an entire country. At this level of censorship, a group is actively trying to prevent others from making their own choices as to what they want to read -- but it isn't illegal to read it.

Politically reinforced censorship. This does not necessarily mean that a particular political party is trying to ban a book (although it is possible). This is when the community decides to make it a legal issue. Not only is it made difficult to read, it is actively made illegal to read and, perhaps, to purchase or possess. They may even decide to burn books or otherwise get rid of copies. This is the level of censorship described in Fahrenheit 451. Note that, in Ray Bradbury's book, it is not imposed "top down" from the government but "bottom up" (from the citizens) based on not wanting to be disturbed, or "made" unhappy, by having to think about issues and conflicting ideas. It also applies to such book burnings as happened during WW II by the Nazi party in Germany (which might be considered "top down" but are authorized by passive, or active, participation by the citizens).

_________

     The above types of censorship are of the "all or none" type. The book can be read or not -- but the book, itself, stays unaltered. The contents can also be censored such that language is changed, or parts are eliminated, or areas extended. Such falls into the same categories as the above but apply only to portions.

__________

Editorial censorship. This can be done by the author, the editor, or the publisher. The author does it as a matter of course during her, or his, process of determining the "best" state for the material to be presented. Words and sentences are changed, added, deleted, put into different spots. Except for a very, very few authors, there are various drafts of material before it is presented in a form meant to be published.
     If an author is well-known, or with a great publishing record, an editor will usually give, at most, recommendations. (There have been times when I have read books by well-known authors when I really have wished the editor had been more insistent on changes.) More often, changes suggested/required by an editor become part of an argument between author and editor. The less published the author, the less clout they have. Changes by the editor may be involved with grammar, spelling, flow, content or whatever else the editor thinks is important. For one of my books, the editor slashed out a number of sections in order to shorten the book -- leaving references in without the material to which they referred.
     Finally, at the publisher, they may require changes to meet their publishing criteria. If it requires substantial changes to be readable then they will probably just reject it -- unless the name of the author is considered to be more valuable than the content.

Community censorship by parts. This falls into two categories -- meeting current socially acceptable standards or a desire to change history such that current social standards are applied to works written during older periods. For current standards, it will be usually be applied by the editor and/or publisher.
     There are instances, however, when the actual material is not the objection -- it is just the fact that the author is not part of the group of which they are writing. A man writing about a woman; a woman writing about a man; a white woman writing about a black man; a Christian person writing about a Muslim person, ... Certainly, an author should always be careful not to generalize about their own groups or about other groups. But, every person in the world is unique. If we are not allowed to write about anyone different, then the only acceptable writings are autobiographies without reference to anyone with whom we have interacted.
     In 1904, a series about a family called The Bobbsey Twins was started. They were children's books about a family that had adventures and vacations in different places. In 1960, the early books were rewritten. Part of the rewrite was to bring them "up to date" -- eliminate the horse and buggies and bring in automobiles and so forth. Other parts, however, were to rewrite for current social standards. The rewritten books looked very little like the originals. Mark Twain's books are often heavily criticized for language and for interactions between characters -- not because they are not accurate for the time but because they ARE accurate for the time. In the comments of Ray Bradbury relayed at the end of the audiobooks for Fahrenheit 451, the narrator talked about how many groups wanted Ray Bradbury to change his book for their desires -- add more female characters, shorten sections, add new section, ...

Politically reinforced censorship by parts. This is active rewriting of history. George Orwell's book 1984 goes into this in great depth. However, it has also been done by various governments -- Stalin, within the USSR, is documented as having destroyed many writings and replaced them with other writings that give different accounts of events. He would also change photos -- not with the degree of credibility that can be done now but sufficiently well that it lent doubt to the original records. Some state governments change the wordings within history books to match what they want to present. As the ability, and ease, to create "deep fakes" accelerates, this will become a greater and greater danger.

The Foundations of History Tend to Shake: could the Holocaust fade away?

     The last of the surviving veterans of World War II are making their passage from this world. Also, the last of the survivors of the Holocaust. Together, this means that -- out of the many thousands of direct and indirect witnesses to the atrocities of the Holocaust -- very few remain and soon there will be none still alive.
     So, why does that make a difference? It is recorded in history and references are still taught and read. It happened, has been very well documented and proven, and is a tragedy from which we can learn for many years. Right?
     Alas, such is not necessarily the case. History is always in the process of being rewritten. Sometimes it is a result of more information coming to light -- excavations, first-hand documents, physical proofs and artifacts. Sometimes it is a matter of documents and artifacts being lost or deliberately destroyed or suppressed and then denied.
     At its best, history is a tiny slice of what has happened at a particular time. Choices are made as to what to include and what to omit.  History, or "His story", tends to focus on males throughout history -- such that women's accomplishments are forgotten, overlooked, or attributed to men associated with them. Histories are also "written by the winners" and the losers of wars and other confrontations often have their records destroyed or omitted -- certainly they are de-emphasized. Also, the history writers make choices from the materials available. Who, and what, is "important"? Do they talk about the war leader or do they talk about the woman organizing and leading the cooks to feed the army (or the family)? Is the life of the baker considered to be as important as the Duke? Do the details of the life of a peasant get equal emphasis to that of the local feudal lord? Even during peacetime, the accounts and records will be more in depth for those of the ruling segments.
     At its worst, history can become fantasies to support the current people in power. Perhaps out of shame, genocides, massacres, and evils done by humans to other humans (such as slavery) have a great tendency to be obscured or their realities warped. Some people try to "clean" history -- change the language used within books, change scenarios and such so that it meets present-day standards. That is also a method of falsifying history. A third category is to deliberately create fake documentation to support misinformation that the person, or group, would like to present as the truth.
     A very active and well-known Anti-Semite wrote a "scholarly" book concerning his anti-semitism. At first reading, it looks very well-researched, objective, and persuasive. It is not until the "references" are further checked that the fabrication becomes clear. The references are "circular references". The references are to people and their works who then refer back to the author or to other people to whom he references. In other words, the work supports itself by having a group of people wanting to present a falsified world view support, and "authenticate", each other. There is no connection to real world events or first-hand accounts. It is all a built up fantasy that SOUNDS like it has a basis in fact.
     So, with history's inherent limitations and vulnerability to falsification, how CAN valid history be protected? To quote Pilate, from the book of John, "What is truth?"
     There isn't an easy answer. History can never present the full truth -- it is inherently limited by access to, and choices from, data. Constant vigilance is needed to prevent deliberate, unsubstantiated, changes to history and acceptance of falsified data. The primary defense that exists is a solid educational background for the general citizenry -- to allow them to judge, to research, and to understand (such as going deeply enough to locate circular references).

History isn't what it used to be -- it never was

   History is a tale of what has happened. But is it really what happened? How do we know? What is the evidence? If we have records of what has happened what about records of what did not happen?

   In the Harry Potter series, the instructor of History is dry and boring and most students in the class don't pay a lot of attention -- until something from out of history seems to pop up once again in the present. This happens with the Chamber of Secrets. But really, the same thing happens to people all the time -- they lose track of what has happened in the past until it starts to happen again in the present and then SOME people recall the events in the past. There is the notion of people remembering the past in advance of events occurring -- an attempt to prevent old mistakes from happening again. But this rarely happens. Fashions cycle. Historical events cycle. Political environment cycles.

   One thing that does bother many people is an active attempt to hide history of which we no longer find acceptable. School systems start to change books to remove the realities of human slavery in the past (and deny the occurrence of present day slavery). Videos are actively altered to sway opinion and emotions. Some people try to deny past atrocities in spite of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of witnesses. Books are edited to make the language of the times in which they were written change to reflect the attitudes of the present. There have been many stories and novels written about such attempts -- often by governments but sometimes by active minorities. But it is very likely there have already been changes actively made that no one influential has noticed.

   Another area in which history does not match what happened in the past is something that might be a coincidence (and might not) which is that (in English) history is very similar to "his story". And it is true that history is predominantly a story of males and male events. Possibly this is because patriarchal (run by males) societies have dominated the past. Perhaps it is because males have been more likely to learn to read and write. It is certainly true that many inventions and creations have happened by women and been uncredited. Check out books such as "Mothers of Invention" (by Ethlie Ann Vare and Greg Ptacek) and "Underside of History" (by Elise Boulding).

    Another problem with resolving the accuracy of history is that of translation of primary documents -- those records that were produced at the time of the events. Who wrote those documents -- probably the "winners" of conflicts. What happened from the point of view of the losers? Decimation of the First Nations in the American continents or the subjugation of the Ainu in the Japanese islands or the aborigines in Australia all have forcibly cut out a good section of the ability to balance the events of history.

   Even recognizing that only the "winners" and the powerful usually have their documents preserved -- language is not independent of the context of the times. If I write a sentence in English today then that very same set of words is unlikely to have had the same meaning 500 years ago and is unlikely to have the same meaning 500 years in the future. It is horrendously difficult to be able to know what was meant within a language within a context that is no longer present. Books that are the bases of religion often expose this fragility.

   In my own family, I recognize how much knowledge as been lost. Where did my mother meet my father? Where was their first date? (I don't know.) What was the occupation of my multi-maternal great-great-great grandfather? What color did he like best? Who fired the first bullet between the Hatfields and the McCoys? Certainly these may be "unimportant" pieces of information but there is no longer a way to know -- the knowledge has been lost.

   So, our ability to know what has happened in the past can only be an approximation. Sometimes things are changed deliberately. Often the documents that are saved reflect only a narrow set of perspectives. The understanding of the meaning of documents and language change through the years. And, in general, much is lost because more was lost from knowledge than was recorded. So, if I read an article in a newspaper or book about a current event and they refer to historical aspects -- I can read it and recognize that that is how people think about the history. It may, or may not, be a reflection of what really happened.

   But that is not an excuse to not try to do better in the future.