| I |
 |
| I think he looks more worrisome than villainous... |
"Tonypandy" is what I would consider a loose definition of history...it's something of a collection of stories and personal accounts told by people of the time period or even told by people who were told by people and so on. It can also been seen with a similar effect as that of the "bystander effect" (when one person relies on a bystander to act on something and that person relies on another person etc. so that the something in question is never actually acted upon). Such as people are afraid to speak up in a bystander situation, people who witnessed historical events may be shy to shoot down exaggerations and to correct the facts that are being told and written down as "history"...."tonypandy" is the history that is fabricated from accounts that people pass along, rather than straight from the "horses mouth" if you please. Afterall, we all know that winners are the ones who write the history books and spread their "tonypandy"...
"History" on the other hand is what I believe to be the real facts about the actual events and people that actually happened....and because I've typed a ton already, I'm just going to list a few quotes from the book that I believe sum up the meaning of history and how it's kept track of...
these quotes are all from the conversation between Grant and Carradine in the end of chapter 8
"The real history is written in forms not meant as history" (pg 106)
"Truth isn't in accounts, but in account books" (pg106)
"After all, the truth of anything at all doesn't lie in someone's account of it. It lies in all the small facts of the time" (pf 105)
At first I was shocked that you'd even consider "tonypandy" to be history when Grant almost exclusively uses the term to reference a source that was UNreliable. Then you explained that "tonypandy" is history that has been made up of stories and fabrications as opposed actual facts. If that is the case is it still considered history? BOOM! Mind = blown.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm just kidding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that fabrications can be considered PART of history because even though they're not the "truth" (this depends on how you define truth I suppose) they are based on REAL things that happened. It's the same as how every rumor gets started - based on fact, and then one thing gets tweaked or twisted, and then a little more, and a little more, and so on.
I agree that you think that Richard III looks more worried than evil. Since he had to model for this portrait for probably hours, he must've had plenty of time to think about his life. He does look worried as if something is going to happen or that he is concerned about someone.
ReplyDeleteI also liked how you viewed the word "tonypandy". I think tonypandy could potentially help as much as it hurts true history. I say this because if there is enough of it, it provides biases from all sides of the story: this shows a "civilian" viewpoint of the person and how many people actually approved and disapproved of what is happening. I dunno maybe thats just my crazy way of looking at it :)
I like how you concluded your post with quotes that summed up Grant's view of history. Those quotes stood out to me as well. When you're in class learning about world history and what not, it is from the "stories" found in a textbooks. Reading those quotes reminded me that true history lies in primary sources; a day to day document, like an account book, can tell you so much more about a time period than a history book can. In the World History class I took last semester, we reviewed many primary documents and I gained a firsthand account of what life was like for a certain group of people during a certain time. I felt like I was learning a rich history by having the access to a document that was written by, rather than about, a group of people.
ReplyDeleteI understand know why facts about Richard can be hard to true, by people stating that he was in the womb for two years and that he had a full set of teeth. When I hear these things I think to myself that all the facts about Richard are all exaggerated; therefore, why should I believe that he killed his nephews? I would believe those things, because that I what the history books tell me to believe and they are the true facts. However, know I see the tonypandy in these facts, where is the reference to these facts were are the exact years and where about of Richards when the boys are killed, why is there tonypandy in the society?
ReplyDeleteSome of those 'facts' about Richard are completely impossible, which makes me think that someone made those up on purpose just to be able to gossip about it. Interesting definition of tonypandy, it does make sense though, you aren't getting the truth from someone that participated in it, you are getting a bystanders description of the event which isn't always correct in the least. Nice quotes at the end though, they really tie everything together as well as support what you have been saying.
ReplyDelete