History is written by the ...who?

" History is written by victors" - Churchhill
[or to be politically correct, "attributed to Winston Churchill, but of unknown origin."]
 Heard it for the first time during the school years, and then recognized it at various times in magazines, books, newspaper atricles, etc..



Recently, two events have given me reason to ponder over it. In no partrticular oder;
1] National Public Radio did a interview with a panel over the upcoming and much hyped HBO mini-series, The Pacific. Based on true accounts, the story focuses on 3 US Marines and their fellows from their first battle with the Japanese upto their triumphant return. Sounds predictable right? Wrong. What I heard was the story of the moral fight, the battles with conscience and the loss of humanity that dogged the marines. How by the time the war came to an end there was general dispair over fellow soldiers turning into cold killing machines. The series also depicts the public attitudes towards the soldiers; Japan and back home. 
All in all this is not what one would think about when thinking about the pacific theater during the WWII. America was on the wining side, they then were the writers of history right? And heroes from the winning side are brave, strong willed, and courageous, right? Not vulnerable, afraid, and later as the war progressed inhuman and their soul in tatters!


2] The 2009 elections in Iran. The incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won 62% of the votes cast. The world and grandmother followed the drama that followed the result declaration. The world and grandmother sympathised with the protestors and were appalled by scenes and stories of repression and oppression. The news arena was abuzz with stories from Iranians who had won over the world sentiment and were crying out that they had in fact won the elections and the Ahmedinejad regime has lost.  That was June 2009 and it is now the end of 2010's first quarter, and the result still stands, Ahmadinejad is the current president of the IRI.
He won and he stays. But look up the elections and you will not find it that straight forward.


Is the new media responsible for changing the adage? With social networks enabling ordinary folks to create and dissipate news [that effects them..or not!] the lines between the winers and losers have become blured; now anyone can write [history/commentary] irrespective of which side of the - now blurred than ever- line one is on; has the information age really and truly revolutionised the appetite for information and knowledge [general in this context]?


While I had immersed myself in thinking that history writing in the now digital age and info age will be more representative of all parties to a conflict, that power coming from winning will not be the sole hand that writes history, I come across this book review:
Let Our Fame Be Great: Journeys Among the Defiant People of the Caucasus. By Oliver Bullough.
Allen Lane; 496 pages [Not released yet]
To quote the essence of what stirred me " One of Mr Bullough’s most powerful points is how little about the Circassians can be found even in works by specialist historians of the region."


Not quite there yet...