Histocrats is apolitical. It started when a small group of history teaching friends decided to use social media and blogging to spread our love of history and to make history more accessible. That was our agenda, and I continue Histocrats with that philosophy. However, thanks to social media and artificial intelligence, the world is so much more different than it was just thirteen years ago when Histocrats began. Both sides now have engaged, and continue to engage, in efforts to obscure, eliminate, rewrite, and even to weaponize history for their own purposes. Recent news of the removal of all references to slavery at The President's House historical site in Philadelphia, steps from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell have prompted me to make a statement unequivocally condemning the erasure of history. The only erasure I want in my world is that great British synth-pop duo formed in the 1980s.
History must be presented honestly and completely because it is not a tool for comfort or propaganda—it is a record of human choices and their consequences. When societies selectively tell history to fit a preferred narrative, they trade truth for convenience. That trade always comes at a cost.
An honest account of history includes triumphs and failures, courage and cruelty, progress and injustice. These complexities are not weaknesses; they are the very features that make history useful. By confronting uncomfortable facts, societies gain the ability to recognize patterns, avoid repeating mistakes, and understand how present conditions came to be. Sanitized history, by contrast, offers false reassurance. It teaches citizens not how the world works, but how they wish it had worked.
Burying parts of history to suit an agenda harms society in several ways. First, it erodes trust. When people eventually discover that facts were omitted or distorted—and they almost always do—confidence in institutions, education, and leadership declines. Second, it silences those whose experiences do not align with the dominant story. Ignoring certain voices or events does not erase their impact; it merely deepens resentment and division. A society that refuses to acknowledge past harm cannot credibly claim to value justice or reconciliation.
Moreover, incomplete history weakens critical thinking. Democracy depends on citizens who can evaluate evidence, weigh competing interpretations, and tolerate discomfort in pursuit of truth. Teaching history as a curated myth discourages questioning and rewards conformity. It prepares people to defend narratives rather than understand realities—an especially dangerous habit in an era of misinformation.
Honest history does not mean assigning collective guilt or denying genuine achievements. It means accepting that progress often coexists with wrongdoing, and that understanding both is essential. Mature societies do not fear their past; they examine it. They recognize that acknowledging errors is not an attack on identity, but a sign of confidence and moral seriousness.
Ultimately, history belongs to everyone, not to those in power at a given moment. When it is presented fully and truthfully, it becomes a shared foundation for learning, empathy, and informed decision-making. When it is buried or distorted, it becomes a weapon—one that harms society by blinding it to itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment