Airbrushing of History

[Ruari]

I was just thinking, after a chat with others, about the effect of airbrushing in history.

You know that famous photo of Lenin speaking from a raised dais to cheering crowds, with Trotsky standing to the right (as we look at it), leaning on the podium? It became famous because Lenin's pose in it became iconic - but Trotsky was airbrushed out by Stalin's 'political correction' monitors.

An interesting philosophical point - did removing Trotsky from the photo eliminate him in reality? Obviously not, as Stalin's goons killed him in Mexico some years later. But did it remove Trotsky's influence from the early days of the Soviet Union?

Can amending amendable documents actually have the effect of changing history - and therefore reality - or does the fact that people know what actually happened (and whatever their beliefs and standpoints) mean that there is another, 'real' reality behind, or separate from, the reality those in control would prefer people to believe?

Now, there's a bit of a poser!

[shortgame85]

I was just thinking, after a chat with others, about the effect of airbrushing in history.

One answer is that reality is perception. If the airbrushing of a photograph changes history's view of a particular incident or, even series of events, then one can support your postulation. More dangerous than airbrushing are two charecterisics of homo sapiens: 1) the selective memory often memorialized as "history," or, as Mr. Peabody might ruefully recall to his boy after a trip back to the "enlightenment, in his

Way Way Back Machine , " You know Sherman, Voltaire said that history is a joke the living play on the dead," and, 2) the tendancy of people, especially nations, to tend to brush under the rug the less salient aspects of their county's behaviour, as did some of our founding fathers during the inception of this nation. Of course the result of not looking and dealing with reality squarely in the eye can have consequences more far reaching and dangerous than if the uncomfortable issues had been met initially.

[Ruari]

So, does reality become what people perceive it to be?
What about the reality that those familiar with events recall, if their knowledge is gradually overwhelmed by the ignorance of those who are aware of only the 'official' version?
Does the perception of the ignorant become reality?
Does the knowledge of the truth drive those who hold it into madness, or do they nurture and maintain their knowledge, waiting for the day when they can reveal all?
Or do they simply maintain the knowledge within their own circle?
(Is that not the basis for 'mystery religions?)

Another point - do the authorities feel threatened by the existence of a group that knows the reality? If so, what will/should they do? How do they maintain their (false) reality when some - no matter how small the number - are aware of a different (true) reality?

[iacas]

Another point - do the authorities feel threatened by the existence of a group that knows the reality? If so, what will/should they do? How do they maintain their (false) reality when some - no matter how small the number - are aware of a different (true) reality?

You know what they say about assumptions. Your thinly veiled attack doesn't fly here, buddy.