One of the coolest things I have seen is this infographic that I think applies to your post.

http://i.imgur.com/6eUoctT.png

It show public opinion (in France?? not sure) on what country was most responsible for defeating Germany in World War 2.

As you can see in 1945 the soviets where given most of the credit, but after time and under the influence of popular culture, and the near endless movies and tv shows depicting world war,  mostly from the point of view of Americans.  Due to the fact that popular culture has been dominated by the US, through it's movies and it's tv shows.

Most people that study history would agree that russia played the biggest part in defeating germany, but movies have now rewrote history, modern history at that, imagine what effect it has of more distant history

Movies, like books, are record keeping medium that can be manipulated to serve a function.  It is interesting that while the audio-visual moving pictures are fantastic vehicle for preservation and dissemination of information, it has primarily been used in either entertainment or propaganda.  

Movies are entirely fictional, and though one can glean the underlying message of the production, it seems foolish to consider the plot of a fiction to be historical fact.  The clever marketing or semantic manipulation of "based on true story" seems to confuse the public.  

The movie "Braveheart" is based on historical event of Scot-English war, but nothing in that movie is factual.  The movie "Revenant" also based on an actual event, but 99% of that movie is pure fantasy.  I think the correct approach to any motion picture is to engage it with the same attitude as one would engage a vampire story.

William Wallace would not have worn a kilt, kilts came about later in history, apparently he actually would have worn an orange robe type thing. From what I have heard, most of the film is fiction.

Since you're referencing movies (and one of my favourites, for obvious reasons) I'd like to add 'Wag The Dog' with Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman. An example of how history isn't just re-written after the fact but during the fact and even when there is no fact. :)

There are many protests around the world these days but increasingly there are many 'protest for hire' companies now also and there are many acts of terror being carried out but also many 'Crisis Actor' supply companies. 

The reference to movies is a modern one but it should make people think about other means of communication and the broadcasting of ideas before the introduction of the moving picture and question if what history in its entirety tells us about historical figures. Winston Churchill for example is a relatively recent historical figure who is well presented by historical documentation but is also quoted as saying ''History shall be kind to me, for I shall be the one who writes it!'' (or something along those lines) and he did. :) Further research might show that he was not the man he is now considered to be though and this exaample can be exxtrapolated back further and becomes more obscured with time and could lead to questions of whether these people actually existed at all or whether they have been posthumously added the the historical script to support some yet to be discovered false narrative. :)

How's that for conspiracy theory? :)

I love this post. Anyone who studies history knows that there is always more to the story. In fact, I would wager that much of what we believe we know about history is wrong, or missing relevant information. The truth is that most of what we are taught about history is merely the accepted primary cause and the end result of various events. Given the extraordinary number of factors both known and unknown, it would be virtually impossible to portray every event in history as completely accurate. There are things that are impossible to know, such as the actual motivation of a historical figure since they are no longer around to ask. 

Also, there is a tendency to apply judgements on history based on modern day morality and values. I think that is wrong.  If you look far back in the history of the world, there have been many dark times where things happened that today we find completely unacceptable; however, we need to remember that in the beginning, most humans' primary goal was simply survival. There was not always the luxury of finding deeper meaning and morality in day to day life. As humankind has developed, it has progressively become more civilized (for the most part), but I don't think that it is right for us to look back sitting in an air conditioned Starbucks sipping a latte and condemn a neanderthal for clubbing another neanderthal to  death for trying to steal his food.

Humans are still animals at the most basic level. Our nature is geared towards survival above all else. Watch National Geographic or Animal Planet and watch footage of a lion or a pack of jackals taking down an elk. It is hard for some of use to watch. Natural is cruel by design and favors the strong. Humans are no different and it is a tribute to our intelligence and civility that we have learned to protect the weak instead of dominating them as our animal nature urges us to do.

This got longer than I wanted it to, so I will just finish by saying that I think it is absurdity that people today are so angry over the past when the world was much different than it is today. It is like blaming an infant for crapping in its diaper. Humanity has grown up and still continues to mature and become better. This quote is one of my favorites:

Learn from Yesterday
Live for Today
Pray for Tomorrow

A perfect example of this is Che. I remember when "The Motorcycle Diaries" came out while I was in college, every liberal girl I knew was in love with it. 

An attractive guy was cast as a young Che Guevara, who drove through South America with his buddies, seeing the result of oppressive governments & how this shaped the views of a young Che.

Of course, I then had to listen to these girls lecture me about how great of revolutionary Che became, totally ignoring part of his "views" contained murder and racism.

This lack of actual historical context and a refusal to absorb new information about your "heroes", is how we have so many Marxists in the streets.

> There is really no way around this it seems as the soundbite and powerful image sells well so **the only way to combat this is at the individual level.**

¡Yes indeed! Only & exclusively at **personal & individual level,** we'd have a remote chance to combat our **intrinsic ignorance.**

> Perhaps recognising this will encourage someone to look at **alternate views** as well to see if there are discrepancies in the accounts.

Unless, that we always be happily willing to exchange positions with everyone else. That we always be happy to switch perspectives. That we'll always have a desire in cultivate a disposition to swap optics. That we always nurture a healthy curiosity to watch things from every angle possible. **Alternate views,** from right & left, **dexter & sinister,** up & down, back & forth, from here & beyond and so on...

### It is more than likely, that we will never know where the hell we are standing in this everlasting illusory life. }:)

![Optics.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmbt87MincDF353KkUGr1sKPUc42rLxokwHTwVx4GDi2AX/Optics.jpg)