On History

If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded. ~Karl Marx(hat tip libertarianquotes.com)

In response to the information presented in chapter 4 of the book, I'd like to address the significance of the idea of "absent history". This is the part of history that is not recorded or mission(as the book states). This history has important political implications. As Marx alludes in the above quote, when a group lacks history it is easily manipulated. Most would agree that when people are easily manipulated, they are weak and may be used as pawns in a game they know nothing about. Any rational man would see that this is dangerous. This leads one to the question: Why is so much history absent?

There are many reasons that histories are absent, but one of them can certainly be tied to the aforementioned quote. Rulers have known this concept for centuries. When one's subjects do not know their past they are easily ruled. Because of this, at times there was a systematic destruction of certain histories. Why is there little mention of Hatshepsut in the hieroglyphs of Egypt? We now know that she was erased from history(although not as thoroughly as someone had wished) in order to maintain her successor's political hegemony. The years are riddled with histories that were destroyed in order to hold power over the people.

Why is this important? One can see from the above that the great danger from the destruction of history by rulers is greater power in the hands of the ruling elite. When this happens, it inevitably leads to the loss of individual freedom to the benefit of those who come to power over them. This, in my not so humble opinion, is unacceptable.

Nick