As the world progresses and moves from one century to another, it has been the job of historians to carry the information of the past to the future. However, as information is passed from person to person, whether it be done so verbally or written, it begins to tarnish with and become less truthful. As societal trends contaminate facts and people strategically manipulate the remembrance of history for personal motives, records move further and further from the truth. The improvements of the Scientific Revolution are greatly overshadowed by the conflict between scientists and the Catholic Church. When the French Revolution is discussed today, the violence of the time period greatly outshines the political improvements. When looking back at early
…show more content…
He stresses that what people “know” today about the coup d’état that overthrew Robespierre and ended the Reign of Terror is nearly entirely false, writing, “Most of the established “facts” are… completely false or else require substantial qualification.” This differs from Little and Griffins’ approaches because they wrote that the more prominent issues of the time are overshadowed by more “appealing” ones, not that the more popular ideas are necessarily false. Jones, however, claims that the modern definition of the overthrow of Robespierre are completely untrue. This makes Jones’s style of writing seem more aggressive in comparison, the author calling for more radical change than Griffin and …show more content…
In the 21st-century, society today revolves around violence, sex, power, and money. Therefore, people today when recalling history tend to focus in on the things relating to these societal values, so much so that they begin to view them as being more prominent in history than they actually. Human nature’s love for drama that comes along with conflicts comes into play in Little’s article as he claims that the layout of society has involuntarily hardwired people to single out the few conflicts between Catholicism and scientists. He writes, “The example usually given is Galileo who was condemned in Rome…” Little explains that people’s minds go to examples where the Church used forceful actions against scientists because they include more conflict and sensualized details. Jones goes for the power aspect of society, claiming people exaggerate the coup d’état because the idea of an all-powerful leader being forcefully ripped from his position and brought from a ruler of thousands to nothing is thrilling. One part he focuses on is the idea that Robespierre attempted suicide before his execution, writing “Overall a botched suicide attempt seems the most likely conclusion.” Jones theorizes that people are hung up on this detail because the idea of such a dominant man being reduced so much so that he sees no other choice than to die appeals to their desire to
He stresses that what people “know” today about the coup d’état that overthrew Robespierre and ended the Reign of Terror is nearly entirely false, writing, “Most of the established “facts” are… completely false or else require substantial qualification.” This differs from Little and Griffins’ approaches because they wrote that the more prominent issues of the time are overshadowed by more “appealing” ones, not that the more popular ideas are necessarily false. Jones, however, claims that the modern definition of the overthrow of Robespierre are completely untrue. This makes Jones’s style of writing seem more aggressive in comparison, the author calling for more radical change than Griffin and …show more content…
In the 21st-century, society today revolves around violence, sex, power, and money. Therefore, people today when recalling history tend to focus in on the things relating to these societal values, so much so that they begin to view them as being more prominent in history than they actually. Human nature’s love for drama that comes along with conflicts comes into play in Little’s article as he claims that the layout of society has involuntarily hardwired people to single out the few conflicts between Catholicism and scientists. He writes, “The example usually given is Galileo who was condemned in Rome…” Little explains that people’s minds go to examples where the Church used forceful actions against scientists because they include more conflict and sensualized details. Jones goes for the power aspect of society, claiming people exaggerate the coup d’état because the idea of an all-powerful leader being forcefully ripped from his position and brought from a ruler of thousands to nothing is thrilling. One part he focuses on is the idea that Robespierre attempted suicide before his execution, writing “Overall a botched suicide attempt seems the most likely conclusion.” Jones theorizes that people are hung up on this detail because the idea of such a dominant man being reduced so much so that he sees no other choice than to die appeals to their desire to