The Cult of History

[The best and greatest]

Nietzsche would probably get called an "incel" today.

I prefer to call him "Master Wizard"

 

[Skin and Bones]

It's the belief that history is a linear line of things sucking and people not having rights to things being awesome and everyone having rights. They see history as to time where we had slavery and mass death to where all the good guys fought against it and made things better so now we don't have slavery and have microwavable burritos and penicillin. So any campaign they go on today is already justified and destined to win because it's clearly of equal importance to what has happened in the past.

 

[Irrational Exuberance]

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past… The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records, and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it." - 1984, by George Orwell.

 

[GethN7]

I see part of it as being naive idealism taken to an arrogant extreme, half having an insidious design.

The "right side of history" naive side assumes humanity is supposed to continually grow beyond behavior we do now that even in present day is considered regressive. The naivety comes from those trying to make it all go away RIGHT NOW even though any actual reading of history shows such changes don't happen overnight and the arrogance comes from the idea they can force that anyway.

The insidious part is the scarier part, because Orwell warned of this in 1984. The people who want to politically correct how history will be portrayed are attempt to alter history so their ideas will always be correct and justified both past and present. They are doomed to fail because these types also tend to be engaged in constant purity spirals where history is never "correct" enough. Thankfully, they don't have the industrial capacity of Orwell's Oceania to make this a reality, but it doesn't stop them from trying.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Decades of media portraying the civil rights era in simplistic black and white ways, everyone wants to be a secular saint like MLK, nobody wants to be a racist redneck.

One of the cringier examples I can think of would be the Mel Gibson movie We Were Soldiers which despite being about the start of the the Vietnam war has a subplot about the men's wives back at home, one of whom is black and there's a scene where they're all discussing laundromats and this ignorant ass white woman thinks the "whites only" sign at one of them is referring to white only sheets or clothing before being told "it doesn't mean that" by the black lady.

Good movie otherwise but that whole subplot felt very shoehorned in.

I'm not necessarily saying that civil rights was wrong, but people did get too high on smelling their own farts over the decades.

And basically there's a wider issue of people simply becoming more dumbed down and less intelligent over time, this makes even something good like the fight for equality turn into something bad, I remember in 2015 when the whole controversy over transgender bathrooms started Time magazine whipping out that old photo of the black guy and the segregated water fountain to say "do ya gettit? Not letting men uses the women's restroom is JUST LIKE segregation!" and it just struck me as so lazy and hackneyed.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

Who wants to be remembered as evil?

Victors write history though.

Not always. Sometimes the losers whine a lot, make more monuments that they revere, and it’s a more important event for them, so they shape the narrative more.

 

[snailslime]

history never happen

 

[Emperor Julian]

Whoever said history was written by the victors was wrong, the victors are often illiterate or busy stealing shit. History currently is written by petty nerds being paid money to discredit each other.

Whiggish history is endemic, people like things to be pleasent neat stories as opposed to the chaotic shit show which usually makes up the truth. The only reason the right challanges the wrong side of history is because it disrupts their own insipid narratives. The whole thing is deeply frustrating to me.

 

[Ahffline]

One of the major problems we have with the current understanding of History is the lack of emphasis placed on the source of the information being considered. It's vital to examine where the content comes from in order to understand the potential biases that can colour the information given. Spartacus is a great example of this. To a Soviet historian, he could be the great example of the inevitable revolt of the oppressed against the oppressor, the Proletariat's drive to unseat those who exploit them. Historians opposed to slavery might laud him as a figure who strove to end an inherently immoral institution, whereas those opposed to social change might regard him as an agitator.

There is no "cult" of History today. People are too ignorant of history in general and how to critically review primary, secondary, and tertiary historical sources for such to exist. Instead, the concept of History is being used to keep people's views and behaviour in line with the prevalent societal values of the day.

 

[Sperghetti]

To be on the Right Side of History is to basically be in some "secular" equivalent to Heaven, and to be on the Wrong Side of History is to basically be in some "secular" equivalent to Hell.

I think you could also make a decent comparison to the Buddhist model: By default, you're in samsara, a miserable and endless state of dying and being reborn. However, if you achieve enlightenment and attain nirvana, you get to leave that behind.

In the religion of History, you're on the Wrong Side by default until you become enlightened and ascend to the Right Side.

 

[Zarael]

I think it's almost religious in nature.
Any big brained fedora tipping redditor knows that there is no God.

Ironic because the whole idea of history progressing towards some mythical utopia began with 19th Century fedora tippers who fabricated the narrative of enlightened thinkers embracing reason and throwing off the shackles of the oppressive Christian Churches. It's a seductive thought but I think if the last decade has proven anything it's that humanity doesn't necessarily embrace pure reason in the absence of religion. Sometimes I think of what it would be like to drag Voltaire into the modern age and see what he thinks of his modern day ideological descendants.

It's going to be a worrying day when China gets their shit together, if they ever do. The west has completely lost its sense of purpose and drive in favor of endless handwringing over the sins of the past and focusing on trying to be on the "right side of history" in the future. The pathology of the west at the moment is that people are absolutely terrified that they'll be considered by future generations in the same way slave owners of the past are considered today. So they get on board with every social justice movement no matter how insane because of course in the future child drag shows will be completely normal and we'll wonder how those bigots in the 2010s could have ever opposed such a natural and normal thing.

At some point the conceit is going to come crashing down. Our modern sensibilities are not because we're so much more morally evolved than our ancestors, we just have much better systems of control.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Isn't the cult of history as you describe it a necessary component of progressivism?

It's essentially that history itself is wrong and that any change and deviation from it is bound to be a good one. But also here's these things we want that would be better and also every change that is in any way related to traditional things is wrong, except when it's one of those things we want.

That would be the honest message. But you can't sell most things being honest about them.

 

[Oglooger]

People need to realize that history isn't linear, but a cycle.
Empires and Kingdoms rise, they have their golden ages, they decline, they die and, from the ashes new empires and kingdoms rise.
The idea that we're just going to keep progressing until we somehow reach the Star Trek-Jetsons singularity superior future™ is just arrogance from uneducated technophiles who were raised on TV and didn't read a book.

 

[Dom Cruise]

People need to realize that history isn't linear, but a cycle.
Empires and Kingdoms rise, they have their golden ages, they decline, they die and, from the ashes new empires and kingdoms rise.
The idea that we're just going to keep progressing until we somehow reach the Star Trek-Jetsons singularity superior future™ is just arrogance from uneducated technophiles who were raised on TV and didn't read a book.

You really have to wonder about the theory that somewhere in humanity's past there was a technologically advanced civilization, ala Atlantis or whatever and something fucked it up sending us back to square one.

Because it's very easy to look at our modern civilization, see it falling apart and whatever high tech advancements we've made being forgotten over time.

There's a lot of metaphors in myth and folklore relating to that, the tower of Babel, Icarus flying too close to the sun, basically it seems like human nature being what it is will always keep us from achieving that Star Trek style utopia.

 

[Irrational Exuberance]

People need to realize that history isn't linear, but a cycle.
Empires and Kingdoms rise, they have their golden ages, they decline, they die and, from the ashes new empires and kingdoms rise.
The idea that we're just going to keep progressing until we somehow reach the Star Trek-Jetsons singularity superior future™ is just arrogance from uneducated technophiles who were raised on TV and didn't read a book.

“Futility of futilities,”
says the Teacher,
“futility of futilities!
Everything is futile!”

What does a man gain from all his labor,
at which he toils under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises and the sun sets;
it hurries back to where it arose.

The wind blows southward,
then turns northward;
round and round it swirls,
ever returning on its course.

All the rivers flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full;
to the place from which the streams come,
there again they flow.

All things are wearisome,
more than one can describe;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear content with hearing.

What has been will be again,
and what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a case where one can say,
“Look, this is new”?
It has already existed
in the ages before us.

There is no remembrance
of those who came before,
and those to come will not be remembered
by those who follow after.

- Ecclesiastes 1, 2-11

I do not believe that this needs to be a cause for despair, but rather a simple reminder that for every "revolution", for every new driving force in the world, it comes off the back of what was once novel and ideal before. Each groundbreaking event in history inevitably digs up the grave of that which came before, and the dead and living come face to face, and one can scarcely tell one from another.

 

[Slap47]

Both the left and the right follow Whig history to some degree.

Extreme leftists believe that capitalism will get so bad that the revolution will happen. Late Stage Capitalism.

Extreme liberals believe that free markets and globalization will end war and "end history". Fukiyama, etc

Extreme conservatives believe that either God will be with them or that traditional values will be revived after this dark age.

You really have to wonder about the theory that somewhere in humanity's past there was a technologically advanced civilization, ala Atlantis or whatever and something fucked it up sending us back to square one.

Because it's very easy to look at our modern civilization, see it falling apart and whatever high tech advancements we've made being forgotten over time.

There's a lot of metaphors in myth and folklore relating to that, the tower of Babel, Icarus flying too close to the sun, basically it seems like human nature being what it is will always keep us from achieving that Star Trek style utopia.

I subscribe this view but its less mystical. Bureaucracy always grows never shrinks as the state must compensate for inefficiency with increased tax. Wealthy is accumulated but never distributed and the wealthy are never loyal to anything but money. States gain legitimacy through protecting people. Everyday people lose their loyalty to the state as it fails to provide what is owed. The wealthy acquire too much power and make naked displays of power. This degeneration happens until a big disaster like an invasion or disease happens.

Han Dynasty lasted 400 years. Free markets and free peasants found themselves replaced with bureaucratic monopolies and landlords owning everything. Messianic peasant uprising leads to the rise of independent warlords and the death of the empire.

Rome lasted a similar length. Bit more slavery but those free markets ended up with landlords using slaves to replace the people with giant estates. The freemen who build the empire had to sell their kids into slavery to survive or found themselves living on welfare. Then climate change happened and a messianic religion speaking of the end times gained prominence. Productivity declined and loyalty to the empire was replaced with loyalty to God or powerful men who provide. Once free citizens flocked to estates and became the first peasants and the old aristocracy was massacred.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Both the left and the right follow Whig history to some degree.

Extreme leftists believe that capitalism will get so bad that the revolution will happen. Late Stage Capitalism.

Extreme liberals believe that free markets and globalization will end war and "end history". Fukiyama, etc

Extreme conservatives believe that either God will be with them or that traditional values will be revived after this dark age.



I subscribe this view but its less mystical. Bureaucracy always grows never shrinks as the state must compensate for inefficiency with increased tax. Wealthy is accumulated but never distributed and the wealthy are never loyal to anything but money. States gain legitimacy through protecting people. Everyday people lose their loyalty to the state as it fails to provide what is owed. The wealthy acquire too much power and make naked displays of power. This degeneration happens until a big disaster like an invasion or disease happens.

Han Dynasty lasted 400 years. Free markets and free peasants found themselves replaced with bureaucratic monopolies and landlords owning everything. Messianic peasant uprising leads to the rise of independent warlords and the death of the empire.

Rome lasted a similar length. Bit more slavery but those free markets ended up with landlords using slaves to replace the people with giant estates. The freemen who build the empire had to sell their kids into slavery to survive or found themselves living on welfare. Then climate change happened and a messianic religion speaking of the end times gained prominence. Productivity declined and loyalty to the empire was replaced with loyalty to God or powerful men who provide. Once free citizens flocked to estates and became the first peasants and the old aristocracy was massacred.

But it's also not impossible that at some point in human history there was a civilization that was closer to where we are today, maybe even a bit ahead and that collapsed too.

 

[drfuzzyballs]

Both the left and the right follow Whig history to some degree.

Extreme leftists believe that capitalism will get so bad that the revolution will happen. Late Stage Capitalism.

Extreme liberals believe that free markets and globalization will end war and "end history". Fukiyama, etc

Extreme conservatives believe that either God will be with them or that traditional values will be revived after this dark age.

So what will end the century of American dominance over the world?

 

[Slap47]

So what will end the century of American dominance over the world?

Another country doesn't need to rise for America to decline from Superpower status.