AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:History is always written by the winners (masters). When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes history books - books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, 'What is history, but a false agreed upon?' Dan Brown
But that can't be true. Maybe we can talk about access to history being limited by the dominant power. But both the victor and vanquished have equal capacity to write history.
Let's take the Murumbi collection as an example. It is a historical text written by the vanquished.
Three points if you do not mind:
A. The question is: whose books are in the Murumbi's collection museum?
B. Also, having equal capacity to write and actually writing are two different things.
C. Dan Brown said: History is always written by the winners, are you saying he was wrong?
D. Which historical text written by the vanquished?
A. The books in the Murumbi collection have been authored by different categories of writers by race, philosophy and political influence - in case you're asking about authorship. If it's about ownership, then they are currently under the Kenyan government and maybe an old friend of Murumbi if I'm not wrong.
B. Not writing is logically a matter of choice
C. Dan Brown is both simplistic and wrong
D. The whole collection is a text by Murumbi. Murumbi hasn't been victorious, or has he? Some parts of the collection, eg. Artwork from Benin are texts that belong to the vanquished.