1st June 2021

There are two distinct forms of historical discourse, those written by participants and onlookers during or in close proximity to events, and those belatedly annotated by scholars, students, authors, that tend to be slanted from a particular perspective. A third variety should exist, being wholly independent narrative without bias or definable purpose beyond the elucidation of fact and the education of the willing to truthful and unembroidered events.

All accounts of past events must be taken as falling into one of the first two camps, either tainted by personal involvement or concurrent prejudices of the period or tipped heavily by the particular socio-political viewpoint of the author, and their position and stature. Works falling under the third imaginary circumstances, independent and nonpartisan renditions, are so scant as to make likely successful interactions mute.

Ergo, all opinions held or formulated about past happenstances must be swallowed with as large a pinch of salt as can be stomached and recognized as highly circumstantial.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s