Day 100- A New Year

I've had such a good time the last few days. Hangin' out with good buddies until the morning's wee-hours playing cards, goofing off, and playing in the snow. Yesterday, we all went up to a friend's house up in the mountains outside Washougal, WA. They had about three feet of snow, and we had a really good time in it, wrestling, throwing snow around, jumping off stuff, and just hanging out. There was a fair amount of hiking involved, so that was a lot of fun, and I felt it when I woke up this morning.

After our mountain adventure, we went back to my friend's apartment in Vancouver and hung out until about midnight at which point I realized that I had slept almost entirely through a movie and had woken to my brother screaming about something Halo-related. So I went home, exhausted. This year's first song played was "It's All About Soul" by Billy Joel.

I really don't have much else to say. I've got great friends, and I've had a lot of fun in the last few days. Not working really makes things a lot more fun around here.

I do have a topic which I would like to explore which is very relavent in politics in this day and age, and a topic of great..shall we say...contention amongst those who don't quite understand it. I was approached by a very opinionated person the other day, who knew my background and brought up "revisionist history" and somewhat of what I viewed as a criticism of the intillectual leanings of the institution which I attend. While I avoided an argument (much to my mother's dismay, because she had been bragging about me to this particular individual, I found out today,) the topic of historical revisionism stuck with me, because I have had the conversation before. These are my thoughts, and you can do with them what you like. For those of you who don't know, I am a history major, so I'd like to think I have some sort of experience in the area.

The example used of "historical revisionism" was the United States Constitution and how it's being bent to fit the needs of special interest groups and whatnot. Here's my thought: If anyone wonders why people interpret the Constitution so loosely, they obviously haven't read it. Because it is one of the most vague documents I've ever read. And if criticizers want it to be interpretted literally, as first written, neither women, nor blacks, nor land-owning males under the age of 21 would be able to vote, and I'm not even certain if the Constitution specifically mentions the voting age. We would not have a system for the electoral college, nor a system for determining who becomes president in the case of a tie. SO. MANY. THINGS aren't even mentioned. A lot had to be added on; 17 Ammendments worth, in order to specify anything what-so-ever. The Constitution didn't even specify how to ammend the Constitution.

Do you know why this is?

Because the founding fathers and the Congress were a heckuva lot smarter than we are. They recognized that times change, and as times change things get defined and interpreted differently, and wanted to leave room for things to be defined at a later date.

As for revisionism. Does it occur to anyone that new documents can be found? That those documents actually DO have historical significance? That just because they challenge an existing idea doesn't make them a farse, like some random digger just pulled it out of their butt to fit their own agenda?

Example: the Nostic gospel of Judas. Yes. It does have historical significance, it's a document that's hundreds, if not thousands of years old. Just because it challenges the Bible and the Gospels doesn't take away that significance.

People interpret things differently because we're different people and have different perspectives. Um...go back to...like...mid-late 1500's. I regret to inform you that I fail to remember the date for Luther's 95 Theses. West of Constantinople/ Istanbul (this proves my point even more) Christianity WAS Catholicism for 1500 years. That was the prevailing thought at the time. Why did Luther think otherwise? Because he read the Bible differently than priests who wanted nothing more than power that came with being able to send someone to hell. Perspective. And Luther read it differently than we do now. Perspective. Ever witnessed an accident? Or a crime? Get a few people who saw the same thing happen, maybe a few who were actually involved and ask them to tell it to you exactly how it happened. More likely than not, you'll get conflicting reports. They might convey the same ideas, but specifics will likely be different, if they're provided at all.

One last thought. Just because some guy wrote it down 600 years ago doesn't make it true. It provides insight into how people lived, sure. But not everything in it is fact. Only they people who were there know for sure, piecing together an explanation of an event. If we're lucky, they wrote it down. Even more lucky if more than one of them did. That's what history is. Looking at different perpectives, trying to think like each person in an event and, using that, try to determine what really happened.

I'll close with this. It sums up all I just said. "History is written by the victors."

If you've got questions, facebook me. I'll do my best to answer them.