Revisionist History
Sometimes, I am truly astounded by the magnitude of the stupidity of people (as a collective). Perhaps I shouldn't be, for I know that people (as a collective) are vastly stupid, but occasionally, even I am surprised at just how stupid they can be.
A while back, I joined "Yahoo! Answers" because I felt it was just so unfair that much of the world is denied access to my unparalleled brilliance and wisdom. *Snicker* (I was almost able to type that with a straight face...almost.)
Joking aside, I am pretty darn good with math (and other topics, but I mainly stick to math help on 'answers'), and I've been told I'm pretty good at 'teaching' too. However, even I am not perfect and make mistakes (no really, it's true). BUT where I am different from a lot (I want to say "most", but that would be an exaggeration...probably) of other people is that when I realize or proven to be that I'm wrong, I won't keep insisting I'm right (all of you "evolutionists" out there be warned - what you "claim" to be "proof" is NOT "proof"; "evolution" is a THEORY it is NOT a FACT. Truth is, "evolution HAS BEEN DISPROVEN numerous times - it fails the 'scientific process' that so many claim to believe in, but zealots are rarely rational and irrational people cannot be convinced. But I digress...).
"Answers" works by allowing people ask questions on a wide variety of topics to the entire "answers" community and receiving, well, answers from them (some questions get a lot of responses, some none at all) and then the community has a chance to vote (each member may vote once per question) on the list of answers received to determine "the best" response. And since the person who provided the answer is a member, they may vote for for their own answer. Fair enough.
But part of the problem is that one gets 'points' for having the best answer chosen and that a running tally of "answers given vs. best answer awarded" is displayed on your profile. The more points you get, the higher your "level", which allows you to answer more questions per day and other things. So many people tend to vote for their own answer (understandable) EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FLAT-OUT WRONG. And THAT pisses me off. Because often (at least in the math category) there are very few total votes received and I've seen way too many wrong answers chosen as "the best", which is now "out there" on the web for all the world to see forever (until a major systems failure or the end of the world) and other people who do a search on the same question are getting the WRONG answer, yet believe it is correct.
Which brings me to my main point of discussion - "the revision of history".
"History" does not change. Our perception of history, however, does. It is said that "History is written by the victor." and perhaps this is true. We are all biased (some more than others) and our bias does affect the way we "see" things or "relate" things. Some people purposefully lie about what they "see" or "know as fact" and try to convince as many people as possible that what they say is "the truth". "Tell a lie often enough and eventually it becomes the truth" is a quote often attributed to Adolf Hitler (my own research indicates he never actually said 'exactly' that, but either he or one of his cronies did say several similar things), but regardless of whether he (or someone else) actually said that or not, its point does appear to be valid: If you can convince enough people to believe what you tell them is the truth, regardless of whether it actually is or not, then it will be reported as the truth. The further away (in time and physical distance) we get from actual events, the more likely it is that errors about that event will be introduced.
So what does this mean? Can we not believe anything about anything? How can we know what is "truth" and what is propaganda? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer (at least, I don't have one). All I can suggest is that you lend more credence to what is written or said by people who were actually present at the event and not by those who were not (modern 'historians' love to say things like "History tells us that such-and-such happened, but we know that's not what really happened" - how do they "know" that's not what happened if they weren't there to see it for themselves?); if someone was present at the event, but has an obvious stake at how it's perceived, lend less credence to them than to those who don't have any interest at stake; listen to what your 'gut' tells you - is what you're being 'told' sound right? I mean, it may be plausible, but 'plausible' doesn't mean 'true'; and finally, believe what people do, not what they say.
I know this last one seems out-of-place, but I put it in because this time of year we (the USA) are inundated with all sorts of political ads and everyone is "saying" that they do this or support that or what not, but do they? Do their actions correspond with what they say?
Bottom line is that you'll just have to decide for yourself what is "true" and what is not. But don't be so close-minded that when you do actually 'see' the truth that you dismiss it because it's not what you've been told (or learned) is "the truth". Be open-minded, but be careful that you're not so open-minded that your brain falls out and you'll believe anything that anyone tells you about anything.
So what was it that prompted me to write this post in the first place? It was a Yahoo! article on "the origin of the US Dollar sign". Someone asked a question (in "Yahoo! Answers") about how the symbol for the US dollar ($ - which is actually incorrect, but we'll discuss that a bit later) came to be. The answer that was chosen as the best is "misleading" at best and complete revisionist history at worst. Though technically they didn't actually give a definitive answer. They start off with "one theory is that it was a U superimposed over an S..." and then proceed with "but modern theories, which are generally accepted as fact, suggest that..." (Editor's note: these are paraphrases and not direct quotes, even though quotation marks are used, but the substance of what was actually written is preserved, to the best of my ability). It's these "modern theories" that I have the most problem with.
Why? Because "history" tells us that it 'evolved' from a U superimposed over an S ("US" for "United States"). Period. This is not a "theory", this is historical fact. I may be old, but I'm not THAT old - I remember this being taught in US History, and I can only conclude that it is no longer being taught. They even showed a picture of old paper money that had the U superimposed over an S. Eventually, the lower part of the U was 'dropped' and the result was an S with two vertical lines through it. Note that's TWO lines, not just one - so the proper and correct way to write the symbol for US dollars is not "$", but
an S with TWO lines (which cannot be typed, for whatever reason). This is why if you ever see anything hand-written by me that has a US dollar amount on it, it will be an S with TWO lines.
So how did "$" come about? That I do not know. Some people say that is was originally used for designating "pesos" and that, similar to the US, it started out being a capital P with an S super-scripted, then superimposed, and eventually with the 'bump' of the P being dropped. Others say that the P and S were used to denote units of "pieces of eight". Could be, I suppose. But these are the "modern theories" stated as being how the US dollar sign came about and that is just plain wrong (remember: we're talking about the origin of the symbol for US dollars, not Canadian dollars, not Pesos, and not any other countries dollars, but US dollars).
If you want to talk about theories for the "generic" dollar sign, that's fine and dandy, but the original posed question was NOT about the origin of the "generic" dollar sign, it was about the origin of the US Dollar sign. Don't confuse people by being unclear when you jump off onto an (admittedly related) off-topic, because this is one way that false information is spread: out-of-context explanations. (Granted, I, too, am guilty of jumping off onto [related] side topics, but I attempt to make it quite clear that it is a side topic, and then get back on-point.)
BTW - don't rely on "Wikipedia" for the origin of the US Dollar sign either, as the entry I saw was equally screwed-up. Remember that "Wikipedia" is an open "encyclopedia" that any (registered) user can alter. Just because it's in print or on the web does NOT make it true. Don't get me wrong, I love "Wikipedia" - it's great for CASUAL references and knowledge, but I do NOT rely on it as a sole source for absolute FACT, because it is not.
Ok, I think I'm done ranting...at least for now.
(P.S. Anyone know the origin of "OK" and the proper way it should be written? Again, it's part of US historical fact. And, yes, I do know. And, no, we're not talking about the postal code for "Oklahoma".)
A while back, I joined "Yahoo! Answers" because I felt it was just so unfair that much of the world is denied access to my unparalleled brilliance and wisdom. *Snicker* (I was almost able to type that with a straight face...almost.)
Joking aside, I am pretty darn good with math (and other topics, but I mainly stick to math help on 'answers'), and I've been told I'm pretty good at 'teaching' too. However, even I am not perfect and make mistakes (no really, it's true). BUT where I am different from a lot (I want to say "most", but that would be an exaggeration...probably) of other people is that when I realize or proven to be that I'm wrong, I won't keep insisting I'm right (all of you "evolutionists" out there be warned - what you "claim" to be "proof" is NOT "proof"; "evolution" is a THEORY it is NOT a FACT. Truth is, "evolution HAS BEEN DISPROVEN numerous times - it fails the 'scientific process' that so many claim to believe in, but zealots are rarely rational and irrational people cannot be convinced. But I digress...).
"Answers" works by allowing people ask questions on a wide variety of topics to the entire "answers" community and receiving, well, answers from them (some questions get a lot of responses, some none at all) and then the community has a chance to vote (each member may vote once per question) on the list of answers received to determine "the best" response. And since the person who provided the answer is a member, they may vote for for their own answer. Fair enough.
But part of the problem is that one gets 'points' for having the best answer chosen and that a running tally of "answers given vs. best answer awarded" is displayed on your profile. The more points you get, the higher your "level", which allows you to answer more questions per day and other things. So many people tend to vote for their own answer (understandable) EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FLAT-OUT WRONG. And THAT pisses me off. Because often (at least in the math category) there are very few total votes received and I've seen way too many wrong answers chosen as "the best", which is now "out there" on the web for all the world to see forever (until a major systems failure or the end of the world) and other people who do a search on the same question are getting the WRONG answer, yet believe it is correct.
Which brings me to my main point of discussion - "the revision of history".
"History" does not change. Our perception of history, however, does. It is said that "History is written by the victor." and perhaps this is true. We are all biased (some more than others) and our bias does affect the way we "see" things or "relate" things. Some people purposefully lie about what they "see" or "know as fact" and try to convince as many people as possible that what they say is "the truth". "Tell a lie often enough and eventually it becomes the truth" is a quote often attributed to Adolf Hitler (my own research indicates he never actually said 'exactly' that, but either he or one of his cronies did say several similar things), but regardless of whether he (or someone else) actually said that or not, its point does appear to be valid: If you can convince enough people to believe what you tell them is the truth, regardless of whether it actually is or not, then it will be reported as the truth. The further away (in time and physical distance) we get from actual events, the more likely it is that errors about that event will be introduced.
So what does this mean? Can we not believe anything about anything? How can we know what is "truth" and what is propaganda? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer (at least, I don't have one). All I can suggest is that you lend more credence to what is written or said by people who were actually present at the event and not by those who were not (modern 'historians' love to say things like "History tells us that such-and-such happened, but we know that's not what really happened" - how do they "know" that's not what happened if they weren't there to see it for themselves?); if someone was present at the event, but has an obvious stake at how it's perceived, lend less credence to them than to those who don't have any interest at stake; listen to what your 'gut' tells you - is what you're being 'told' sound right? I mean, it may be plausible, but 'plausible' doesn't mean 'true'; and finally, believe what people do, not what they say.
I know this last one seems out-of-place, but I put it in because this time of year we (the USA) are inundated with all sorts of political ads and everyone is "saying" that they do this or support that or what not, but do they? Do their actions correspond with what they say?
Bottom line is that you'll just have to decide for yourself what is "true" and what is not. But don't be so close-minded that when you do actually 'see' the truth that you dismiss it because it's not what you've been told (or learned) is "the truth". Be open-minded, but be careful that you're not so open-minded that your brain falls out and you'll believe anything that anyone tells you about anything.
So what was it that prompted me to write this post in the first place? It was a Yahoo! article on "the origin of the US Dollar sign". Someone asked a question (in "Yahoo! Answers") about how the symbol for the US dollar ($ - which is actually incorrect, but we'll discuss that a bit later) came to be. The answer that was chosen as the best is "misleading" at best and complete revisionist history at worst. Though technically they didn't actually give a definitive answer. They start off with "one theory is that it was a U superimposed over an S..." and then proceed with "but modern theories, which are generally accepted as fact, suggest that..." (Editor's note: these are paraphrases and not direct quotes, even though quotation marks are used, but the substance of what was actually written is preserved, to the best of my ability). It's these "modern theories" that I have the most problem with.
Why? Because "history" tells us that it 'evolved' from a U superimposed over an S ("US" for "United States"). Period. This is not a "theory", this is historical fact. I may be old, but I'm not THAT old - I remember this being taught in US History, and I can only conclude that it is no longer being taught. They even showed a picture of old paper money that had the U superimposed over an S. Eventually, the lower part of the U was 'dropped' and the result was an S with two vertical lines through it. Note that's TWO lines, not just one - so the proper and correct way to write the symbol for US dollars is not "$", but
an S with TWO lines (which cannot be typed, for whatever reason). This is why if you ever see anything hand-written by me that has a US dollar amount on it, it will be an S with TWO lines.
So how did "$" come about? That I do not know. Some people say that is was originally used for designating "pesos" and that, similar to the US, it started out being a capital P with an S super-scripted, then superimposed, and eventually with the 'bump' of the P being dropped. Others say that the P and S were used to denote units of "pieces of eight". Could be, I suppose. But these are the "modern theories" stated as being how the US dollar sign came about and that is just plain wrong (remember: we're talking about the origin of the symbol for US dollars, not Canadian dollars, not Pesos, and not any other countries dollars, but US dollars).
If you want to talk about theories for the "generic" dollar sign, that's fine and dandy, but the original posed question was NOT about the origin of the "generic" dollar sign, it was about the origin of the US Dollar sign. Don't confuse people by being unclear when you jump off onto an (admittedly related) off-topic, because this is one way that false information is spread: out-of-context explanations. (Granted, I, too, am guilty of jumping off onto [related] side topics, but I attempt to make it quite clear that it is a side topic, and then get back on-point.)
BTW - don't rely on "Wikipedia" for the origin of the US Dollar sign either, as the entry I saw was equally screwed-up. Remember that "Wikipedia" is an open "encyclopedia" that any (registered) user can alter. Just because it's in print or on the web does NOT make it true. Don't get me wrong, I love "Wikipedia" - it's great for CASUAL references and knowledge, but I do NOT rely on it as a sole source for absolute FACT, because it is not.
Ok, I think I'm done ranting...at least for now.
(P.S. Anyone know the origin of "OK" and the proper way it should be written? Again, it's part of US historical fact. And, yes, I do know. And, no, we're not talking about the postal code for "Oklahoma".)
posted by TubaMeister at
07:31
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home