Americans Rewrite History….Again!

reply to post by Freeborn


Didn't see anyone supporting it, saying it happens all the time.

Edit: Had more links but they had the cuss word for poop, BS, in URL which was changed to a # and 404s the link

A philosophical note to take into consideration

History as propaganda: Is history always written by the victors?

See also: Truth by consensus

In his "Society must be Defended", Michel Foucault posited that the victors of a social struggle use their political dominance to suppress a defeated adversary's version of historical events in favor of their own propaganda, which may go so far as historical revisionism (see Michel Foucault's analysis of historical and political discourse above). Nations adopting such an approach would likely fashion a "universal" theory of history to support their aims, with a teleological and deterministic philosophy of history used to justify the inevitableness and rightness of their victories (see The Enlightenment's ideal of progress above). Philosopher Paul Ricoeur has written of the use of this approach by totalitarian and Nazi regimes, with such regimes "exercis[ing] a virtual violence upon the diverging tendencies of history" (History and Truth 183), and with fanaticism the result. For Ricoeur, rather than a unified, teleological philosophy of history, "We carry on several histories simultaneously, in times whose periods, crises, and pauses do not coincide. We enchain, abandon, and resume several histories, much as a chess player who plays several games at once, renewing now this one, now the another" (History and Truth 186). For Ricoeur, Marx's unified view of history may be suspect, but is nevertheless seen as:

the philosophy of history par excellence: not only does it provide a formula for the dialectics of social forces—under the name of historical materialism—but it also sees in the proletarian class the reality, which is at once universal and concrete and which, although it be oppressed today, will constitute the unity of history in the future. From this standpoint, the proletarian perspective furnishes both a theoretical meaning of history and a practical goal for history, a principle of explication and a line of action. (History and Truth 183)

Walter Benjamin believed that Marxist historians must take a radically different view point from the bourgeois and idealist points of view, in an attempt to create a sort of history from below, which would be able to conceive an alternative conception of history, not based, as in classical historical studies, on the philosophical and juridical discourse of sovereignty--an approach that would invariably adhere to major states (the victors') points of view.

George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is a fictional account of the manipulation of the historical record for nationalist aims and manipulation of power. In the book, he wrote, "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." The creation of a "national story" by way of management of the historical record is at the heart of the debate about history as propaganda. To some degree, all nations are active in the promotion of such "national stories," with ethnicity, nationalism, gender, power, heroic figures, class considerations and important national events and trends all clashing and competing within the narrative.

wiki source

Hollywood is clearly an instrument of propaganda.

here's something for you canadians.

here is something alot of folks are unaware of.
and they give full credit in the movie to canadians where credit is due.
and also show a strong bond between the two units that formed the brigade.

the first link is about the movie the second is about the unit it's self

The Devil's Brigade

Devil's Brigade

i have always been a big history buff, and have enjoyed watching movies that were made for entertainment and seeing the inaccuracies in them and being able to point them out.

one thing you have to remember movies are for entertainment, documentaries are for education or information.

reply to post by blupblup

The same sort of rubbish is spouted in threads about WWII.... and many other topics. America are the saviours of the world and invented everything. And someone just pointed out to the American who claimed that America invented Cars and everything else. Always cracks me up how America is the centre of the universe for Americans. Do they teach that America invented everything? The TV & Car and Internet, Moving Pictures and whatever else? Because you really didn't. Is it kind of like North Korea??

I really do often wish my country could erase itself from the history of the world for the last century. I wish we hadn't been there to get drawn into WW1. I wish we hadn't been there to get dragged into WW2. For that latter note, my brother's father would not have died flying a B-17 out of the UK over Germany in 1944.

Yup, Europe could have fought its own wars and regardless of the outcome, no one would have missed us and we... we would have missed any of the killing and dying either.

Eventually, one nation or another... perhaps Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, would have developed the A-bomb and depending on who was still alive 70 years later, they could hate on someone else.

On your behalf, I will write my congressman and ask him to withdraw all US military from Europe and Asia... to cease all foreign aid to every nation on the planet as well as the UN. In fact, let the UN find a new home. No more NATO, either. Let Europe and Asia figure it all out for themselves.

We're done with ya. Good night.

Here's the deal, if Hollywood does a movie "based on actual events" it manipulates and reworks actual events to create and more compelling and dramatic narrative. If this means cutting out, reshaping or blending characters (actual participants in any particular event) together to create a more compelling or more dramatic movie they will do this and have done this through out the history of movies.

Not only that but movies are geared toward a particular audience, Hollywood gears movies toward American audiences as this is their primary source of revenue....you don't want to alienate that group. This not only happens here in America but all across the world. Most countries movies are geared toward their own populations, this is not conspiracy...it is good business.

And finally if you want actual history read a book on it...actually read several as every author is going to look at the subject their writing about differently. The author's unique view and own political or nationalistic leanings can effect how a story is presented and possibly even reshape an event in the reader's mind.

The only people who know what happened in Iran or in any other the other events referenced in this thread are the people who were there...everything else is just hearsay and subject to the author's viewpoint.

I am going to end with a question:
Can anyone tell me an author or director who's books or movies are 100% factual and not subject to artistic or dramatic license at all?

reply to post by krazykanuk

This is how history is rewritten to the masses or don't you get that?

Than I'm sorry but you are delusional.

If someone watches a movie and takes it at face value, than they are ignorant. It is not the reponibility of film makers who create "entertainment" to accurately portray historical events, if you want a history lesson pick up a book or go take a class.

I dont remeber reading about a black man who single handedly destroyed the biggest plantation in the South (Django Unchained). I also do not remember Arthur Leigh Allen actually being the Zodiac Killer (Zodiac, although he very well might have been), I do not remeber Chris Gardner's son being so old, or selling bone scanners (The Pursuit of Happiness).

Movies are entertainemt and they are not meant to be taken as literal interpretations of the truth.

Might I add that this movie was apparently lapped up by Joe Public with its win at the Oscars.

Because it was a well made movie. Good acting, good story, good cinematography you know things that make movies worth nominating for best picture.

reply to post by redoubt


reply to post by Tazkven


Okay then, perhaps 'support' was a bit of a stretch, how about blindly accept or acquiesce - think they about sum it up.

As for those who say, 'it's only a film', you are indeed correct - but it's amazing what influence film has on everyday people - and I hasten to add here that I am by no means singling the USA out here, it's the same the world over - and this can be witnessed in nearly every non-US related thread here on ATS where we have quite a few, by no means not all, Americans coming out with the same old, predictable bollocks, 'We saved your asses in two World Wars', 'If it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German' etc.
It's absolute nonsense and I suspect it primarily stems from Hollywood's version of events.
It's easy to say people must be dumb to believe it, but they do.
And the image that Hollywood projects goes all round the world now and creeps into the subconscious in an insidious manner.
I'd suggest that such is the power of Hollywood, especially the major blockbusters etc, that they have a moral responsibility when relaying factual based events to be as honest and truthful as possible - regardless of how discomforting this may be at times to the domestic audience.

Now I'm not suggesting that Hollywood is anywhere near as blatant and ill intended as this but it is one example of how much influence cinema can have;

Goebbels, who appointed himself "Patron of the German film", assumed, accurately, that a national cinema which was entertaining and put glamour on the government would be a more effective propaganda instrument than a national cinema in which the NSDAP and their policy would have been ubiquitous. The main goal of the Nazi film policy was to promote escapism, which was designed to distract the population and to keep everybody in good spirits;

en.wikipedia.org...

I enjoy the entertainment and escapism that a good film provides, and that includes Hollywood blockbusters, but I don't like to see blatant fabrications being passed off as factual with the sole purpose of making Americans feel good about something - and I'm absolutely certain that Americans would feel exactly the same if it was the other way around.

reply to post by Freeborn


I've read the entire thread thus far, every post. I see folks complaining that movies aren't factual, that Hollywood should not change facts to make a movie more compelling or to make the primary target audience "feel good" at the end. To all of this I say, yes, it's a movie, it's sole purpose is to entertain and make money for the studio, the cast, the crew, the services that provide for the cast/crew, etc...

You stated at the end of your last post:

I enjoy the entertainment and escapism that a good film provides, and that includes Hollywood blockbusters, but I don't like to see blatant fabrications being passed off as factual with the sole purpose of making Americans feel good about something

This in itself is a contradiction in terms. With all due respect, anyone, and I mean ANYONE that goes into a movie theater to see a non-documentary film and expects it to be a history (or other factual) lesson, is purely deluded and needs real professional help. The reason they state clearly up-front "based upon actual events" or "inspired by a true account" is to allow the movie makers to invent, adjust, fabricate and manipulate the story in whatever way they see fit in order to tell an entertaining and gripping story, get the viewer engaged, and make money. Like it or not, the truth is rarely so compelling that it will keep the attention of the typical movie goer, that wants an escape from reality, and to have a sense of "willing suspension of disbelief" for a few hours of their lives. Perhaps, it inspires a few of those viewers to actually look up and read about the real story that they may never have known even existed in any form?

(NOTE: I would like to make is a law that when a "based upon a true story" disclaimer is needed, then a subsequent link or list of reference materials to the true story should be required as part of the credits of the film).

There's a wonderfully funny movie parody of Star Trek entitled, Galaxy Quest. This movie was made some years ago, but it has a relevant aspect to this discussion. For those that are unaware of this movie, in it there is an alien species (the Thermians) that intercept the television signals of a campy TV earth show, Galaxy Quest, and interprets them as "historical documents", and hilarity and drama ensue. I really fail to understand how anyone can truly believe that films that are not explicitly marketed as documentaries should be held to a 100% accuracy standard.

If you want a documentary of this event, that is 100% true and accurate to the nth degree, then, by all means write it, make it, spend millions of your currency of choice. However, do not expect to make any of that money back, let alone a profit. Movie studios (like it or not) are driven by profit and minimizing risks. The sooner you accept that, and move on, the less arguments will be in our collective future.

reply to post by Krakatoa



off topic a bit
i really enjoyed that movie.

this is one of my favorite scenes


[Fred tries to digitize the pig-lizard with disastrous results]
Jason Nesmith: What? What was that?
Alexander Dane: Uh, nothing.
Jason Nesmith: I heard some squealing or something.
Gwen DeMarco: Oh, no. Everything's fine.
Teb: But the animal is inside out.
Jason Nesmith: I heard that! It turned inside out?
[the pig-lizard explodes]
Teb: And it exploded.
Jason Nesmith: Did I just hear that the animal turned inside out, and then is EXPLODED?

Originally posted by krazykanuk
How is it that someone can spend years chasing rainbows and unicorns whilst there are "real-time, real-life" conspiracies staring them right in the face?

You claim to be "aware" yet actually believe in fairy-tales! This is laughable....

So you are convinced that gubmint huntin' tewowists are the reason behind all wars...

And you think that I believe in fairy-tales?

SERIOUSLY?


For those of you who ARE interested in non-fiction this is the real source of all wars:

They were referred to in ancient times as the Brotherhood of the Snake, AKA the Brotherhood of the Dragon.

Jesus more appropriately called them the "Synagogue of Satan".

Danny Casolaro called it "the Octopus".

Fletcher Prouty called it ‘The Secret Team’.

George Washington called it the ‘Illuminati‘.

Originally posted by NetStorm
"Danny Casolaro called it "the Octopus". A vast, interlocking network of criminal conspiracy that reaches into every branch and agency of the U.S. government, many other national governments, and every sector of our societies."

The Secret Team is the name of “a powerful, brutally violent and treacherous international team”, says Prouty, 'with operatives in the academic world (scholars), in intelligence agencies (spies), in the military (both officers and enlisted personnel), in private industry (businessmen & women), in the world of corporate and public sector high finance (bankers, financiers and stock brokers), in the news media (electronic & print journalists), in the publishing industry in the United States and abroad (book publishers).''

It has powerful connections in dozens of countries all over the world. According to Prouty, the Secret Team overthrows and influences governments almost at will, all over the globe. At the core of the Secret Team are members of the CIA, the National Security Council, and various and sundry other military and civilian officials, intelligence operatives, business people and academics.

The Secret Team is "the real power structure" which Prouty compares to “a sprawling octopus”. It has the world and the United States in its deadly grasp. The Secret Team

reply to post by Freeborn

I'd suggest that such is the power of Hollywood, especially the major blockbusters etc, that they have a moral responsibility when relaying factual based events to be as honest and truthful as possible - regardless of how discomforting this may be at times to the domestic audience.

I agree with you for the most part, however the nature of cinema beckons for exageration and artistic liberty. The history of events as portrayed in many films (especially war films) are altered to add a level of suspense, drama, or action which quite honestly does not always occur is reality.

When making a movie you are pandering towards an audience who wishes to be entertained more so than educated, and while you can still educate in a film no one wants to sit in a theater for 3 hours getting a history lecture.

And yes the film industry can be used as a propoganda tool, but could Argos elevation of the CIA really be considered pandering to nationalist sentiment and propoganda?

but I don't like to see blatant fabrications being passed off as factual with the sole purpose of making Americans feel good about something - and I'm absolutely certain that Americans would feel exactly the same if it was the other way around.

Have you seen JFK? That did not make Americans necessarily feel good about themselves, and it is pure conjecture based on an important factual event. In fact I would argue that many films are created that make the Americans the bad guys, or at the very least imply that we have some sort of shadowy underbelly.

reply to post by Krakatoa


With all due respect I fail to see how that statement in itself could be described as a contradiction.
You may disagree with it, which I have absolutely no problem with, but it contains no grammatic contradictions at all.

I politely ask you to re-read these posts and see just why many non-Americans find the literary licence taken with facts in this film and it's marketing as going a step too far.
www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=Freeborn

To be honest I fail to see the relevance in the Star Trek / Galaxy Quest - neither has ever been passed off as factual or 'based on a true story'.
(And yes I have watched all the Star Trek films and Galaxy Quest, and enjoyed most of them).

reply to post by Openeye


Some film makers do try to call it as it is - but they are in the minority.

And in JFK there was still an all-American hero, (to be fair he could hardly be any other nationality), in Jim Garrison who fought against all odds to unearth the truth etc.

Whilst I enjoyed watching JFK, (think I've watched it two or three times in total), and it certainly helped highlight many of the unanswered questions surrounding Kennedy's assassination, it is not however marketed as a definitive explanation of the assassination but rather a representation of Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw - a subtle but very important difference.

There are many who would argue that Stone's interpretation includes many inaccuracies and doubt Garrison's sincerity and tactics.

But I guess that's a whole different arguement altogether.

president jimmy carter, ben afflack, have both said publicly that the credit is 90% canadian, not american...but it is a MOVIE!!!....not a history lesson. and that fact has been in publications all over the world...this is hardly rewriting history as the OP claims.

reply to post by Freeborn

I politely ask you to re-read these posts and see just why many non-Americans find the literary licence taken with facts in this film and it's marketing as going a step too far. www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=Freeborn

Yes, I have read them....and my position remains that to expect that from Hollywood is tilting at windmills. If you (or anyone) feels that strongly, then please write your own book/script and make it 100% accurate. I would love to read/see it myself, but due to the business aspect of that effort, it would very likely be a losing sum game. While you are at it, you could address the Hollywood script writer and producer on your concerns, and not just whine about it here on ATS. Honestly, especially considering you are painting ALL Americans with the same brush here which is equally unfair....wouldn't you agree?

To be honest I fail to see the relevance in the Star Trek / Galaxy Quest - neither has ever been passed off as factual or 'based on a true story'. (And yes I have watched all the Star Trek films and Galaxy Quest, and enjoyed most of them).

This reference is relevant since the Thermians took the TV show as fact...which you are coming across expecting Hollywood to do with entertainment based movies. I do not think I could make it much more clear to you on the similarities.

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, perhaps you should change your thread title to accurately reflect the content of this discussion to:

"Hollywood Rewrites History….Again!



You wouldn;t want everyone to mistakenly think that ALL Americans rewrite history in this film.....right

reply to post by Krakatoa

Honestly, especially considering you are painting ALL Americans with the same brush here which is equally unfair....wouldn't you agree?

No I'm not - but then again if you've read all my posts in this thread you would know that.

This reference is relevant since the Thermians took the TV show as fact...which you are coming across expecting Hollywood to do with entertainment based movies.

And many people who view this film will take it as fact.

reply to post by Freeborn


If they take it as fact, then they obviously are not too bright, wouldn;t you agree (regardless of their country of origin).

reply to post by Krakatoa


Yes, I would agree - but when it is marketed and presented in such a way as to lead people into believing that it is a true representation of the facts it is inevitable given how critical and individual thought seems to becoming such a rare commodity in our dumbed down societies - so many people just accept what is put in front of them without question.

Originally posted by Krakatoa
Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, perhaps you should change your thread title to accurately reflect the content of this discussion to:

"Hollywood Rewrites History….Again!

edit on 25-2-2013 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)

You wouldn;t want everyone to mistakenly think that ALL Americans rewrite history in this film.....right

edit on 25-2-2013 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)

hey, hey, hey...can't you see that this is an amercan bashing thread? let's try and keep on topic of blaming every type of world problem on america.

Originally posted by redoubt
It's not just Hollywood. We all do this... stereotype millions of complete strangers under a preferred header earned by one or a few.

I see both points here. I am an American and was very much alive and active in the world during the hostage crisis. I remember singing a rework of the old 'Barbara-Ann' song with 'Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb-bomb Iran!' I also recall the subject of those Americans being saved by the Canadians. At the time, there was a lot of honest gratitude.

I also know that those in high offices, along with Hollywood, regularly rewrite history to create a designer public opinion for a specific purpose in time. The history of every major event and every single war we've ever been engaged in is always in some degree of rewrite. The US Civil War has been rewritten a million times and they haven't yet offered up the truth of all the whys, hows and wherefores.

So, it's basically up to us to go out and learn this stuff first hand. We have to forget what we read in the media and what PBS, National Geofunky or the Smithsonian cranks out. This means going to a good library and pouring over the records that survive, to this day, from all those many events that did change history.

It's either that... or finding comfort in fairy tales.

well said..indigenous history is rife with white men rewrites.. perhaps we all have been evolving towards the truth finnaly coming out for ages. I see our history as this nasty boil... it cannot stay in the state it's in for long.. Yet once the pus is gone.. we shall find healing.. Yet you have to have the nasty before you can get to the sweet truth..