Udut Amazing read. Sometimes it’s inspirational mythology, perhaps showing a commitment to science, showing a continuing willingness to be a part of the global scientific community.
But I suspect a lot of it is rather like US nationalism, a pride that may or may not be deserved for things that may or may not have happened.
Someday, I want to see a universal world history book. But at the foreseeable future, a lot is more of the same.
There’s a middle eastern modern myth / historical revision that proves a particular Native American tribe was Muslim. I don’t have a problem with that: no worse than other claims of other lost tribes by other peoples.
But it’s surprising to see it come to my shores. Will it affect US history? It may for some.
This for example, I find as mostly harmless. If I were Cherokee and did not want this, I might not like it. Or, maybe it’s true, part of a missing history. This dates back to 1996.
It reminds me of Mormon tales I’d heard, or tales of Freemasons woven through US history.
Who writes the history and for whom?
What’s amazing about it is how normal / common it is throughout human culture and it continues to this day.
Look at our own: How authoritative is our own history? What errors and deceits alike have found their way into canon?
How much is true?
I believe having an authorative history is critically important and takes the work of scholars across cultures to piece it together.
Islamic contributions are a recent and necessary addition to Western history, yet the elimination of Dark/Middle Ages has been a slow and painful process. The Byzantine empire still gets the short end of the history stick.
Meanwhile, Russia continues both to inform us of things we missed while ALSO inventing new history, hoping it becomes Western canon.
Then you have Southern USA history revision which has been going on for almost 100 yrs now.
Science advocates can be atrociously bad at history. Look at Gallileo vs the Catholic church. The science advocacy telling of history mushes together his do-not-publish thing with Spanish inquisition with burning of witches in USA, usually within the same sentences, giving an impression of an oppressive religion preventing the glorious ascent of necessary PROGRESS.
But it’s a handpicked story that ignores all of the money, time and effort made by the Catholic church through the centuries to advance sciences as for them, God’s wonders ARE a valid and virtuous pursuit.
So, what I do is look for big swings, big dramas, us/them stuff. That’s my usual sign of “this is political advocacy here”.
I haven’t, but I’m on a no-documentary policy for a few years now.
The reason is how they’re put together to bring you along to their conclusions It doesn’t matter what the documentary is about but the convincing process is very strong.
I’ll read a transcript but not watch a documentary.
The description confirms my concerns.
“This is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen.This documentary planted a seed which gradually changed the way i saw the world”
My solution to that has been this:
Work with individuals.
Only play into their narratives just long enough to move them away from it and into a human to human chat.
Once talking human to human, make a friend.
Once that’s established, there’s time to assist them in humanizing their thinking.
It’s not always possible but I like to think I make headway and have successes.
My goal for each person is in the self-actualization camp as I’m an individualist and conform to that way of thinking
Unfortunately, I don’t have the will do work on a larger scale than individuals and in conversation (online only) and only in public-ish forums / comments.
But if I were, say, broadcasting a weekly show and gathered a bunch of followers who hung on my words just to hear “everything you say is right”, I’d be doing the same stuff that I’m pushing against.
I know it sounds like I’m going in a different direction than you were moving towards but that’s because I was.
You’re sounding the alarm.
But this is what I do for a solution.
Friendship is the general solution although sometimes metaphorically punching a Nazi is also necessary.
I could only watch a min or two of this. While this isn’t a documentary, it is a more straightforward convincing tool that doesn’t hide what its doing.
I agree with a bit of it, then I can see where it goes into a religious fervor.
Still, it is a positive version of what you posted above, Words (memetics rather) can not only be used to create what’s unwanted but also create what’s wanted.
You can see it as a war or you can see it as corrections of errors.
(That said, Sapir-Whorf isn’t so, but it can affect a strong surface level of immediate impression, coloring our perspectives. I’d say that metaphors are structural to understanding moreso than words)
Inaction enables the powerful in cases of power differences.
Not all memeplexes swap evenly.
If I say tyranny is a memeplex that can be evenly swapped with peace, or that one’s peace is another’s tyranny, would you consider that universally true?