[irrational]

What I was taught is that ancient peoples did not look at history the way we look at it. When I open a book by a modern historian, I assume the book will be about things that actually happened, how they actually happened, why they actually happened, the correct order in which they actually happened, etc. I expect the historian will tell me when there is ambiguity or uncertainty.

Ancient historians would think this is nonsense. The point of writing history is not the events themselves, it is not to get down on paper what actually happened. What kind of idiot would want something like that? No, the point of writing history is to share a message. Often they would draw parallels between two events to explain something. Now they might need to greatly fudge, exaggerate, change the order, etc. of those two events in order to make everything to fit, but that is fine. The actual events that happened is not important, it is the truth (i.e., the point the historian is trying to get across) that is what is important. The events themselves are not the message, the message is served by the telling of the events, even if the telling is not 100% accurate (as we would see it).

[MisterOctober]

and of course, modern 'history' is also suffused with, uh, spin. Classic recent example : the profound differences in Cold War history as told by each 'side'

I can also think of a concrete example from when I was in middle school : Shay's Rebellion was presented in history class in a completely different light to the way I've come to understand it from independent reading [i.e., in school we learned that Shay's guys were rogues as opposed to folks [generally Rev. War vets] unjustly dispossessed by (among other economic factors) ill effects of speculative investment in government assets and misguided fiscal + tax policy]

[snapdangle]

When the only means of preserving your history is to speak it truthfully, that's what you do.

[irrational]

That might be the main difference. They would have considered the idea of "preserving your history" to be not worth considering. It didn't seem to be something they valued (at least in the sense we understand it).

[snapdangle]

That's entirely the cultural bias of treating other humans as savage and primitive and not listening to a word they say.

[irrational]

They were hardly primitive, they just valued things differently than we do. Having a different value system doesn't make them savages.

[RWildon]

The bias you are falling for is the assumption that what you are reading when you open said history book is not just generally about things that actually happened, but far more importantly not just "how they actually happened, why they actually happened" but what has been omitted and left out intentionally to frame a certain narrative that is not in line with the interests of those who make you believe the history book you are opening is 100% accurate.

The difference being that far more in the past where there was an inherent interest in preserving the accuracy of certain classes of events where self-interests demanded and required accuracy, today what you think you are reading, whose accuracy is assumed by proximity to criteria that are surely far more accurate (i.e., order of things that were not fantasy), there is an inherent incentive to distort the perspective because those who record and disseminate the "history" are far less likely also self-interested in actual accuracy of the history. It's essentially the "to the winners go the myths and legends" problem. The accuracy of events actually goes down in many different ways when you start muddling interests as modern society has. Do you ever think, e.g., that we would have written a history in which the enemy is the "good guy", but we just happened to win the war? Reality though is that the history you read assumes an accuracy through formality or deliberateness ... it is the same reason that so many people are conned into thinking that NPR and the mainstream media are somehow inherently more accurate or right, let alone just not devious, because they talk in a deliberate and calm and precise tone.

In many ways the very precision the western world has obsessed about is contributing to the very corruption of its soul because we are obsessed with procedure and process to such a blinding and OCD degree that we miss the underlying message and lessons. It's a rather mentally unhealthy mentality that insists on the "accuracy" that "not all of those who want to conquer us have killed us yet...", thus, post hoc ergo propter hoc, "...our enemies are also just like us because they say they are and we believe their words over their actions". It's an odd obsession with formality and process that has totally negated spirit and emotion and just plain and simply most fundamental and instinctual self-preservation.

So here we are and instead of having learned a history that makes us realize that "socialism" is not about being social and friendly, and communism is not about being a community even if specific details are not perfectly captured; we say, "well, since they have not been done properly we will give it all another go."