Real and Fake History: Can it be the Same?

[Bêthberry]

MatthewM, I see by your profile that you are from the New World, New York.

It seems to me that America's attitude towards real history is somewhat different than the European attitude. "History" is all around the countries of Europe. Ancient buildings still stand and are used, people remember what happened in places because they don't--or didn't at a high rate--tear down useful buildings and structures to make room for modern things. England still has Roman roads--and they are called such. Castles still stand. And barrows are all over the land, real barrows that were funeral grounds.

Here in America, we tend to tear down old things rather than reuse them. We also have fewer centuries of 'lived' history behind us. Mores to our pity I think, as there is much in our history that bears remembering, especially how our lands were explored and taken over.

So I think it is easier for North Americans to blur the distinction between fictional and real history, or to be cynical about the histories recorded in textbooks. For us, it is a 'textbook', always written by someone with a particular perspective; for Europeans, to a large extent, history remains something which shaped their land and cities. It isn't something that comes out of a book.

After all, real history is told by witnesses and participants, rather than by journalists and scholars.

Of course, I'm sure some of our European BDers can easily refute my thoughts here, but certainly my visits to Europe gave me a sense that Europeans live under a weight of history that North Americans cannot quite appreciate.