How fragile history really is

One of the more interesting points Orwell makes in the course of the novel deals with history and how easily manipulated it is. Winston spends much of his time early on searching for the fundamental question: Were things better off before the revolution? No one knows. No one has any fundamental knowledge of the past. In essence Orwell points out how important history is in measuring the present.

Additionallty, Orwell clearly points out how fragile history is when we see Winston rewriting it so effortlessly. In doing so, he simply throws the truth down the memory hole.

Historian and author David McCullough recently said that today's young people are "historically illiterate". It is something Orwell clearly warned us about decades ago. More importantly, Orwell is asking to look at history through several different lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teacher

One of the more interesting points Orwell makes in the course of the novel deals with history and how easily manipulated it is. Winston spends much of his time early on searching for the fundamental question: Were things better off before the revolution? No one knows. No one has any fundamental knowledge of the past. In essence Orwell points out how important history is in measuring the present.

Additionallty, Orwell clearly points out how fragile history is when we see Winston rewriting it so effortlessly. In doing so, he simply throws the truth down the memory hole.

Historian and author David McCullough recently said that today's young people are "historically illiterate". It is something Orwell clearly warned us about decades ago. More importantly, Orwell is asking to look at history through several different lenses.

---

I disagree rotundly. The kids of today are far more literate than they ever were as kids.

I agree in the sense that children of the 21st century aren't as interested in history, but I disagree with the statement that todays kids are 'illiterate'.
History is indeed fragile in the sense that once it's said and done, how are we to be sure what really happened? Unless we stood on that battlefield or protested in that particualr strike, we've basically been taking everyones word for what happened.. I believe thats why Winston's job is so easy, its so simple to re-write history and bend the truth.. We also need to take perspective into account. How one feels about a certain senario is completely different from how one on the losing end of the battle feels. Emotions and feelings play a huge part in whether an artifact should be credible for exaggeration stretching the truth can take place.