Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
The past is a set point for the future. And the present depends on it. Who writes history? Who controls the future? The victors. The victors then unroll the furl of the prescribed reality.
Fall is a difficult period for Native Americans. First there is Halloween, where kids can dress as ‘Indians’ courtesy of Disney Company. Then there is Columbus Day and Thanksgiving which have been historically whitewashed. Very little real history of Native American genocide remains that is taught to public school students of the United States. How many people people know about forced residential schooling? Where Indigenous peoples had to endure unbelievable cruelty? Indigenous peoples have had their history altered by the victors.
History should be about the truth. When history is not about the truth is a cover-up or conspiracy to hide the truth. Interestingly enough, in Shakespeare studies there is a conspiracy to hide reality. There is a constant mirage making in land of the Stratfordians. They are not interested in the truth of uncovering who Shakespeare was, but in keeping with the myth of the man from Stratford. This charlatan charade smacks of Disneyfication.
In an article featuring Stanley Wells, a well-known Stratfordian, states that the Shakespeare controversy matters because it’s wrong for university teachers to propagate theories for which there is no basis in fact. It matters because history matters, because truth matters. I couldn’t agree more. But then he goes on to state that there is something psychologically wrong with people who question the Stratfordian version of the ‘truth.’ This line of thinking is very dangerous, because unless you can question the ‘official’ version of reality, you are sliding precipitously into an Orwellian prison. For it was Orwell who also stated: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. A form of double think that obviously serves those in power. And those who wish to remain free must be able to question the idea that simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs is not an exercise in academic freedom.