The concept of Lucas (1) is that historians gather up bits of information and hide them away in libraries out of the reach of the great unwashed and uneducated masses. This he called the "Squirrel Theory of History." From their winter stores, they are entitled to draw down by selective memory, those events that conveniently aid them in telling a story that will be both interesting and having just enough of the essence of fact that they, the historians, will be recognized to be deep thinkers, wise men and if nothing else that their books will be a good read.
Nowhere is it said by Lucas that historians or squirrels have an understanding of responsibility or possessing good sense. The roads are littered with the reminders that these hairy tailed rats can't make up their minds and go dashing into traffic only to meet their end. These critters often are the cause of computer crashes as they discover that those exposed terminals on the transformer atop the creosoted pole are their last resting place. And, dangling oneself on a tree branch by a single grasping paw in front of an alley cat is a sure way to end the day, if a small misstep occurs.
Such it is with Ambrose Brooks who has enlightened us all with the nuts from his storehouse of knowledge. Sad to say that history is being rewritten by the likes of mister brooks. With the aid of Microsoft and the politically correct crowd, it is entirely possible that the next generation of adults will be so deprived of actual knowledge that they will see nothing wrong with the conscious distorting of facts so that the teaching of history canl be made simple.
A school at which the local computer club holds its monthly meeting has a policy of NO tobacco products on campus. To reinforce this they go to great efforts to punish the transgressor, barring the student or if it be a club, denying them use of the facilities. In one of the science classrooms pictures of the idol of today's teachers, Albert Einstein appear. His pictures adorn the walls behind the lectern for all the students to see. Imagine if you will, a picture of Einstein without his pipe. You don't have to, because there in all his glory, you see him with pipe in hand or mouth. But wait, quick forward six months and lo and behold, miraculously, Al has joined the non-smoking crowd. No hint of his indulgences are seen in the new pictures that have replaced the old. With the stroke of a pen (or creative computer imagery) the pipe has disappeared. Is this right? Is it fair to deprive poor Al of his smokes just because the school thinks it's immoral? These kids, who will be tomorrow's adults, are forming an opinion and like it or not, the majority of them are smarter than their teachers give them credit for. They will give Al a wink as they endeavor to pass the tests and later the butts.
Just as they have an "understanding" with Al, they also will have a basic distrust of the likes of mr. brooks and his distortions of history and teachers who don't know the difference. At least we can hope.
****
(1) J. R. Lucas (Cambridge) coined the phrase "squirrel theory of history." Rightly he points out that there are actually few true "facts", all being a viewpoint that is recorded by some near or distant observer. Newspapers of old were the custodians of facts and their files became the hallowed ground that a researcher could delve into to ascertain what might have happened at a certain place at a certain time. With the passing of reporters and editors who may or may not have been unbiased, we are now left to the judgement of managers, analyst and commentators. The old saying, "one picture is worth a thousand words" also fails to preserve history. The camera can be trained on a subject dependent on the viewpoint that the operator has so that it can grossly exaggerate an event or by not choosing to see it as newsworthy be passed over entirely. And, with computer magic, objects can be made to appear or disappear. Such is the new "science" of history.
Objections are well placed when an author attempts to rewrite history. In denying an event happened or that it was of minor consequence, the historian(?) shapes "knowledge" presented to the entrap the unwary. Far more deceitful are out-and-out lies. It is hard to imagine someone being supportive of a liar, but we now hear, "It could have happened." (But it didn't!) As tho this justifies the fabrication.
This is not a new discussion. Cervantes and others before him said, "Truth is the mother of history" However, how do you determine what was actually truth. Here is where Dr. Lucas makes his contribution. Only by a clear understanding not only of the event's background, how the event was recorded and exactly who is relating the story, is it possible to reach conclusions that are justified.
***
On Not Worshiping Facts, J. R. Lucas, Philosophical Quarterly, 8, 1958, pp 144-156 (Squirrel theory of history). See also, Against Equality, J. R. Lucas, Philosophy 40, 1965 pp 296-307 (Are all men equal?)
The Cat's Pajamas, Tad Tuleja, Fawcett Columbine, 1987. "Volitare, who quipped that history is "but the story we agree upon";
Oscar Wilde, who observed in The Importance of being Earnest that it is a terrible thing for a man to find out suddenly that all his life he has been speaking nothing but the truth." This seems to be the viewpoint taken by our visionaries.
Rousseau said, "It requires a great deal of scientific thought to discern the facts that are close to us." Economic Harmonies, Frederic Bastiat, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey. 1964, pp 2. Historians would like to think of their calling as a science, but is it? Historians who discover facts are doing their job: historians who do not discover new facts are not really historians at all, but merely popularisers, pedagogues or journalists.
Joe Wortham's Home Page , About Joe Wortham , Directory
Questions? Comments? [email protected]