As we continue the debate about "history" this recent discussion of an event in American history might help to understand that "history" is often made up of multiple views...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/opinion/bergen-seals-bin-laden-killing/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
Great article!
ReplyDeleteSo common (and sadly, from a historian's perspective) to see that these events are almost always glorified and illustrate the victors as being portrayed much more heroic than actually (they were heroes, but not "superhero" type heroes). Perspective changes a lot of how we view the significance of certain events. For example, even today, when we talked about the "CIVIL WAR" we even call it as the union would say--that the US had never divided, thus a civil war (war between citizens of the same country). I think it is safe to say that the winners dictate the path of history.
Hey Audrey! I definitely found your response interesting after I finished reading the article. I actually disagree a bit with the fact that winners always dictate the path of history. Especially after our summer reading and what Mr. Stewart had said in the beginning of the year about the article regarding the Lost Cause, I have definitely changed my previous opinion that history is always in the perspective of those who won. If anything, like written in the Lost Cause article, there are several times when history is "altered" to make the other side look victimized. I would say the Boston "Massacre" was one such incident from our previous units. In regards to your case about the civil war, I think that the other articles we had read in the beginning of the year countered that slightly with the talk of how the textbooks in the South tried to say that Blacks were fighting for the Confederate cause (therefore not making it a war about slavery). Here, I feel that the losers had influence over writing the history.
DeleteI totally agree though that perspective changes peoples' views of an incident (as was shown in the bin Laden article). Clearly these people had different accounts of the same story, and it is very difficult to see which one is right.
Thanks for the comment Audrey! Very thought provoking about the nature of written history. :)
Wow, this is fascinating. In spite (or because) of Bergen's bias, I'm still not quite sure which side's account to believe. Part of me wants to agree with Bergen, because the evidence that he presents is overwhelmingly in favor of his account, but I also think that Robert O'Neill (The Shooter)'s account deserves a second look as well. Ultimately though, I agree with the author's message that it's more important to recognize that the mission was a team effort rather than squabble over who exactly shot bin Laden.
ReplyDeleteHere's another source from ABC News. It's much more neutral, but the evidence is also tipped perceptibly towards Bergen's perspective. With this article, I am more inclined to believe Bergen's side of the story...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/killed-osama-bin-laden/story?id=26739447&singlePage=true