Just had to revisit this thread in light of the most recent episode of South Park.
For those who didn't see it it completely lampoons the History Channel and its theories of ancient aliens, this time centring around the history of Thanksgiving.
Mini review here:
http://www.tvfanatic.com/2011/11/south-park-review-natalie-portmans-vagina/
Mini trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJi3FBCpDc
They make a lot of fun about the History Channel's style of negative argument - basically that you can't prove that aliens etc weren't there back then, and plus there's a load of totally weird symbols that we can't explain man...
As one of the mock 'experts' of the History Channel says in the episode: In every journal entry we researched from those early pilgrims. not one entry mentions anything about aliens not being there.
djonkoman's history teacher was right to suggest caution when dealing with this subject, but there's a big difference between academic, peer-reviewed, journal-published history and people who write a book about murky parts of history based on highly questionable evidence just because they can.
To be honest if you get into dense historical theory, you can argue that nothing that has ever happened is provable. All history is based on sources, which are created by language, which poststructuralists/postmodernists will tell you can be interpreted uniquely by every single different person who encounters them, thus rendering everything into fiction, not fact. (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism )
To quote Jenkins, a staunch postmodern theorist:
Not only are multiple and sometimes mutually exclusive interpretations [of historical sources] possible, they are inevitable, and the truth of an interpretation cannot be verified. All histories are equally representative of reality and therefore equally fictitious.
However, this is a pretty extreme view and despite making a fair amount of sense when you sit down and think about it (or do a degree on it like I did), it works better as an exercise in thought rather than in academic practice. As another prominent theorist, R. J. Evans, stated:
Through the sources we use, and the methods with which we handle them, we can, if we are very careful and thorough, approach a reconstruction of past reality that may be partial and provisional, and certainly will not be objective, but is nevertheless true... even if the truth they tell is our own, and even if other people can and will tell them differently.
All of which means that the postmodern challenge to history results in us having to put up with the History Channel and its wacky programming - but it doesn't mean you have to believe 99% of what they say! Most historians still have high empirical standards I can assure you...
I'm sorry if all of this has been a very boring rant, and didn't mean to annoy anyone who watches the History Channel, who are of course welcome to watch and believe whatever they want, I'm just speaking up for the majority of historians!
And I'd be impressed if anyone cared long enough to read through all this, but it was bugging me and I had to get it out somewhere! Although for those among us interested in philosophy, I can really recommend a vape accompanied by some Derrida or Barthes (even if they are overly-wordy Frenchies). Wondering if facts or even anyone/thing else actually exists is a bit of a headf*cker!
-
Kyle: "What? This isn't history!"
Cartman: It's History Channel, Kyle..."