this is now, the rest is history!
tell me, who decides what is history? some say history is what the victor wants it to be. if it isnt the true and accurate happening of things that is recorded for future generations to learn, how is that then history?
sometime future generations learn that a certain part of history isnt true. how? perhaps some new evidence of the true happening is discovered, in whatever form possible. be it geological, historical or biological, whatever.
anyway, the question i would like to ask is:
if we discover new evidence which bring history to a new understanding, shouldnt we “update” history to that new understanding? the example i would like to give is our calendar. true enough that we know it isnt accurate, but we have no sure means of making it anything more than a bit more accurate. there is one thing that we could do, update the calendar to our way of counting. since we are counting the number of years passed since a certain event, shouldnt we at least start with the right number? the modern calendar starts with ‘1’ for crying out loud!
reciting the history of that matter is a bit long, but ill provide you with a link to and explanation i made in another thread in this forum The three 0’s
so history was made wrong the first time, but it wouldnt be the first time history is “fixed”.
although it might seem like a big change, who would notice the year ‘0’ inserted in between 1 bc and 1 ad?
bj0rn - millennium 1999/2000