![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Deciphering History
Mar. 2nd, 2008 10:29 amIn some ways, the February 29th entry sounds like I treat all theories and ideas equally. No, I am not in favor of teaching creationism in the schools just in case evolution happens to be wrong. My leeriness on the topic of “I know” is more centered on history.
This is more than understanding that you might teach elementary school children that George Washington was a great man and later teach them in high school that George owned slaves and had faults like other men. (And I could rant for days about the fact that some teachers want to continue to teach the young adults in high school that American leaders had no faults!)
I had always done a lot of reading of ancient history. I did a lot more reading when I decided to write a novel set in ancient times. I wanted to write an alternative history novel, but I found that written history was full of “alternatives”.
If I studied a book, I had to check the copyright date because the writer’s words may have been discounted years later. (I still remember a workshop member who wrote a story in which the premise depended on the fact that no one had deciphered the Mayan written language. Two of us had to point out that a local scholar just two years prior had deciphered it.) So, one lesson is that written history is full of pitfalls for someone who is an amateur. A professional knows what theories are currently accepted by “the academy”.
The Academy is not all knowing. How many years did the Black descendents of Thomas Jefferson plead their case? Lesson #2—professionals have biases. They are biased by class, by culture, and are naturally conservative. In some ways, that is good: they won’t jump on an unproven idea. In some ways, that is bad: they often won’t accept a proven idea from someone outside of their caste.
Lesson #3: Professionals disagree among themselves. During junior high school, it was surprising for me to read about the search for the historical Jesus. I imagine that it is disturbing for some to pick up BAR and read that some scholars think that the Exodus from Egypt never happened. (I don’t have to imagine. I’ve read the angry letters to the magazine.) None of that was mentioned in church. I credit my new faith that the possibility is mentioned and discussed in synagogue. The four gospels can’t even agree on the names of the twelve disciples! I’m reading “James, the brother of Jesus” right now and it is beginning to sound like the author thinks that 4 of the disciples were Jesus’ brothers. Does that make a difference to a regular church service? Probably not, but it makes the Jesus movement sound more like the Maccabees to me.
All of which is to say, if you are writing an alternative history what “history” do you accept? You may be building your alternative on a childish view of the world. You may be building your alternative on an outdated theory. You may be building your alternative on a biased theory. You may be building your alternative on a controversial theory. I ended up picking the theories that suited the story that I wanted to tell.
I do wish that these theories were more accessible to the public. Every time that Passover, Easter, or Christmas approaches the Discovery channel—supposedly a science channel—pulls out the same old shows, which present the biblical stories as if they were documented history. Who are the scholars writing for? Why are we only getting the elementary school version of the Bible?
This is more than understanding that you might teach elementary school children that George Washington was a great man and later teach them in high school that George owned slaves and had faults like other men. (And I could rant for days about the fact that some teachers want to continue to teach the young adults in high school that American leaders had no faults!)
I had always done a lot of reading of ancient history. I did a lot more reading when I decided to write a novel set in ancient times. I wanted to write an alternative history novel, but I found that written history was full of “alternatives”.
If I studied a book, I had to check the copyright date because the writer’s words may have been discounted years later. (I still remember a workshop member who wrote a story in which the premise depended on the fact that no one had deciphered the Mayan written language. Two of us had to point out that a local scholar just two years prior had deciphered it.) So, one lesson is that written history is full of pitfalls for someone who is an amateur. A professional knows what theories are currently accepted by “the academy”.
The Academy is not all knowing. How many years did the Black descendents of Thomas Jefferson plead their case? Lesson #2—professionals have biases. They are biased by class, by culture, and are naturally conservative. In some ways, that is good: they won’t jump on an unproven idea. In some ways, that is bad: they often won’t accept a proven idea from someone outside of their caste.
Lesson #3: Professionals disagree among themselves. During junior high school, it was surprising for me to read about the search for the historical Jesus. I imagine that it is disturbing for some to pick up BAR and read that some scholars think that the Exodus from Egypt never happened. (I don’t have to imagine. I’ve read the angry letters to the magazine.) None of that was mentioned in church. I credit my new faith that the possibility is mentioned and discussed in synagogue. The four gospels can’t even agree on the names of the twelve disciples! I’m reading “James, the brother of Jesus” right now and it is beginning to sound like the author thinks that 4 of the disciples were Jesus’ brothers. Does that make a difference to a regular church service? Probably not, but it makes the Jesus movement sound more like the Maccabees to me.
All of which is to say, if you are writing an alternative history what “history” do you accept? You may be building your alternative on a childish view of the world. You may be building your alternative on an outdated theory. You may be building your alternative on a biased theory. You may be building your alternative on a controversial theory. I ended up picking the theories that suited the story that I wanted to tell.
I do wish that these theories were more accessible to the public. Every time that Passover, Easter, or Christmas approaches the Discovery channel—supposedly a science channel—pulls out the same old shows, which present the biblical stories as if they were documented history. Who are the scholars writing for? Why are we only getting the elementary school version of the Bible?
