If (!) history will be rewritten

[Pierre]

Hi,

This isnīt anything like the interesting thread of Fishermans "If", where he discusses a theoretical model about his own suspect.

This thread is simply about the theoretical model of the rewriting of history.

Today I am thinking about the implications of finding a person and proving that he was the serial killer Jack the Ripper.

Literature and movies about the murders all have one problem: You never get the real story about the killer. If you did, we wouldnīt be here now. So you canīt see a picture of the killer in the plots. You see shadows or nothing. You get a lot of historical work on the fact around him; the victims, their background, the environment, the people in Spitalfields and so on. But still - only murders and no murderer.

Well now: IF my data sources will be sufficient to prove who he was (I hope they wonīt), history will most certainly be rewritten.

But what kind of history will it be?

First of all it will be quiet a different history and not what people have expected or read before. It will tell of things never heard of in this case.

The history of Jack the Ripper will be explanatory. It will clearly describe his motive for comitting the crimes. Also and not least important, it will explain the motive for the methods he used and the places he choose for his crimes.

Of course it must describe his own life. Where he was born, who his parents were and what he did for a living. His own life as well as his parents life were dramatic and a bit tragic and this side of his own history will have to be described as well.

I think that people will understand why he became this particular killer when they get his background. The implications of who he was and why things happened as they did will also throw a new light on the established society in relation to his crimes. I donīt think people will be happy reading about these aspects.

Perhaps the most important thing in the new history about Jack the Ripper is throwing light on some things in the previous histories of him that seem hard to understand for us. He did do things to make people understand who he was and there was actually some people who knew. But this has been buried in history. So part of rewriting history will be to "let the killer speak". Of course, this aspect is rather unpleasant. But it has do be done.

Well, this is only a theoretical model about rewriting history, which I call "if". It hasnīt happened yet and perhaps it never will. Who knows, maybe someone else solves this case and I can quit.

Thanks to you all for reading this. Knowing that youīre there, getting angry at me, is support enough for me.

Regards Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi,

This isnīt anything like the interesting thread of Fishermans "If", where he discusses a theoretical model about his own suspect.

This thread is simply about the theoretical model of the rewriting of history.

Today I am thinking about the implications of finding a person and proving that he was the serial killer Jack the Ripper.

Literature and movies about the murders all have one problem: You never get the real story about the killer. If you did, we wouldnīt be here now. So you canīt see a picture of the killer in the plots. You see shadows or nothing. You get a lot of historical work on the fact around him; the victims, their background, the environment, the people in Spitalfields and so on. But still - only murders and no murderer.

Well now: IF my data sources will be sufficient to prove who he was (I hope they wonīt), history will most certainly be rewritten.

But what kind of history will it be?

First of all it will be quiet a different history and not what people have expected or read before. It will tell of things never heard of in this case.

The history of Jack the Ripper will be explanatory. It will clearly describe his motive for comitting the crimes. Also and not least important, it will explain the motive for the methods he used and the places he choose for his crimes.

Of course it must describe his own life. Where he was born, who his parents were and what he did for a living. His own life as well as his parents life were dramatic and a bit tragic and this side of his own history will have to be described as well.

I think that people will understand why he became this particular killer when they get his background. The implications of who he was and why things happened as they did will also throw a new light on the established society in relation to his crimes. I donīt think people will be happy reading about these aspects.

Perhaps the most important thing in the new history about Jack the Ripper is throwing light on some things in the previous histories of him that seem hard to understand for us. He did do things to make people understand who he was and there was actually some people who knew. But this has been buried in history. So part of rewriting history will be to "let the killer speak". Of course, this aspect is rather unpleasant. But it has do be done.

Well, this is only a theoretical model about rewriting history, which I call "if". It hasnīt happened yet and perhaps it never will. Who knows, maybe someone else solves this case and I can quit.

Thanks to you all for reading this. Knowing that youīre there, getting angry at me, is support enough for me.

Regards Pierre

Alright, Pierre! You win! I'll buy your damn book! Hurry up and publish it already!

PDS

[curious4]

Alright, Pierre! You win! I'll buy your damn book! Hurry up and publish it already!

PDS

Still nothing new. Just the same old meaningless psychobabble.

Can do better?

I doubt it.

C4

[Mayerling]

Hi,

This isnīt anything like the interesting thread of Fishermans "If", where he discusses a theoretical model about his own suspect.

This thread is simply about the theoretical model of the rewriting of history.

Today I am thinking about the implications of finding a person and proving that he was the serial killer Jack the Ripper.

Literature and movies about the murders all have one problem: You never get the real story about the killer. If you did, we wouldnīt be here now. So you canīt see a picture of the killer in the plots. You see shadows or nothing. You get a lot of historical work on the fact around him; the victims, their background, the environment, the people in Spitalfields and so on. But still - only murders and no murderer.

Well now: IF my data sources will be sufficient to prove who he was (I hope they wonīt), history will most certainly be rewritten.

But what kind of history will it be?

First of all it will be quiet a different history and not what people have expected or read before. It will tell of things never heard of in this case.

The history of Jack the Ripper will be explanatory. It will clearly describe his motive for comitting the crimes. Also and not least important, it will explain the motive for the methods he used and the places he choose for his crimes.

Of course it must describe his own life. Where he was born, who his parents were and what he did for a living. His own life as well as his parents life were dramatic and a bit tragic and this side of his own history will have to be described as well.

I think that people will understand why he became this particular killer when they get his background. The implications of who he was and why things happened as they did will also throw a new light on the established society in relation to his crimes. I donīt think people will be happy reading about these aspects.

Perhaps the most important thing in the new history about Jack the Ripper is throwing light on some things in the previous histories of him that seem hard to understand for us. He did do things to make people understand who he was and there was actually some people who knew. But this has been buried in history. So part of rewriting history will be to "let the killer speak". Of course, this aspect is rather unpleasant. But it has do be done.

Well, this is only a theoretical model about rewriting history, which I call "if". It hasnīt happened yet and perhaps it never will. Who knows, maybe someone else solves this case and I can quit.

Thanks to you all for reading this. Knowing that youīre there, getting angry at me, is support enough for me.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre,

If getting angry at you gives you a feeling of support for your approach 1) I'm not getting angry at you at all; 2) the way you handle your approach is so unique to this Board (my opinion) it has thrown many people for a loop!

I haven't really written frequently on the various threads that you started or have written deeply in them, because I have very little to comment. Playing guess the Ripper is meaningless unless (as you have pointed out) you can produce a viable chain of proof regarding a person you pinpoint as Jack that can't be smashed or questioned. Almost all can be. And my own opinion is that after 127 years it is increasingly less likely that we will find the answers. If you are more successful than I feel anyone would be, congratulations. I really hope, even if you are not able to find that last piece of info you need you will relent and tell us what your thoughts were.

As for "If" history (as opposed to "Iffy" history, a term invented by FDR to dismiss the fictionalization of events by changing results: i.e. the Titanic does not sink, or Booth does not kill Lincoln, or Hannibal does march on Rome following his smashing victory at Cannae) - I am a history and political science major (for whatever good they have done me) and I have been thinking of some person in history whose personality has been probed, labelled, and generally accepted by a majority in that final label. Not everyone might agree to the label. Most people think Abraham Lincoln was our greatest American, not just our greatest President, but there are real critics to this day who question this - civil libertarians about his stand on habeas corpus (he made old Chief Justice Roger Taney look better for fighting him on this matter, after Taney's blunder in the Dred Scot Decision), African-Americans who feel Lincoln had to be pushed into full acceptance of their demands for freedom and equality by the likes of Frederick Douglas (there is some truth to this, but I think Lincoln figured out the reality for himself), and white supremacists who blame him for his championing the African-Americans and total war (a la Grant and Sherman and Sheridan) on the South. It appears that the anti-Lincolns are split among themselves and also a minority.

But recently I have been watching something along the lines of what you have been hinting at in modern day America. Although hardly in the Gandhi, FDR, Lincoln, Hitler level of historical importance, the recent decided fall in popularity and public support of the African-American comedian and actor and producer Bill Cosby is on line of what I think you are getting at. In the 1990s, and as late as 2002 or so Cosby name and reputation were high. He was not only one of the first African-Americans to break stereotypes regarding televisions shows (I Spy, The Cosby Show), but he was outspoken in attacking the Hollywood and cultural stereotypes - doing a landmark television documentary in the late 1960s showing how false and bad these stereotypes were regarding Blacks. It probably helped make television and movie studios more careful on how to handle these matters (and not only for African-Americans, but for Woman, Latinos, Asians as well). Sometimes it took longer, and sometimes the effects remained uneven, but the impetus and movement for reforming was there - and Cosby was in the vanguard.

After 2002 two things happened. He had vast amounts of public sympathy because his only son was murdered by thugs in Los Angeles in the 1990s. But in the early part of the 2000s he was forced to confront the arguments of a young woman that she was his illegitimate daughter. This case he won (the girl went to prison for extortion I believe) but it tarnished his image a bit. He was also crusading now about ending certain stereotyping of women and policemen in the African-American sub-culture in it's language and in it's new "Rap" Music Lyrics. In particular the use of the notorious "N" word by young African-American males. This actually brought down some criticism of Cosby in the African-American community, where it was felt he was harming the very people whom the earlier Cosby had been helping.

Then came the last year and some thirty women claiming he sexually molested or attacked them since the 1970s. Now (withholding one's own opinions on these matters) Cosby's guilt or innocence on these charges will eventually be proved in law courts. However, they are reminding us of that earlier matter of the young woman who claimed she was his illegitimate daughter. Maybe there was some truth after all to her statements. Also the damage is crippling and already begun. Courses in various college that Cosby (who has a degree in education) founded have been renamed to drop his name from them. Doctorates have been taken back from him. One school has decided to reject a previously accepted scholarship program he founded because he founded it and it's named for him. Let's face it, whatever happens in those law courts, Bill Cosby's reputation will forever be smeared and reduced from what it was.

I think that is the kind of effect you are talking about - only brought to some more historically important figure, rather than one who was culturally significant.

Am I correct?

Jeff

[John G]

I'm a little confused, Pierre, I.e. regarding references to "history will be rewritten", and "the new history", etc. Am I right in concluding that your solution involves some sort of time traveller's paradox? Are you attempting to construct a time machine? If so, I think that might provide a conclusive solution. I therefore wish you good luck with your endeavour.

[Pierre]

I'm a little confused, Pierre, I.e. regarding references to "history will be rewritten", and "the new history", etc. Am I right in concluding that your solution involves some sort of time traveller's paradox? Are you attempting to construct a time machine? If so, I think that might provide a conclusive solution. I therefore wish you good luck with your endeavour.

Hi there Inspector,

well, we canīt remake the past, can we. The past is the past, but history is history.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

Hi there Inspector,

well, we canīt remake the past, can we. The past is the past, but history is history.

Regards Pierre

Now that's helpful

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

If getting angry at you gives you a feeling of support for your approach 1) I'm not getting angry at you at all; 2) the way you handle your approach is so unique to this Board (my opinion) it has thrown many people for a loop!

I haven't really written frequently on the various threads that you started or have written deeply in them, because I have very little to comment. Playing guess the Ripper is meaningless unless (as you have pointed out) you can produce a viable chain of proof regarding a person you pinpoint as Jack that can't be smashed or questioned. Almost all can be. And my own opinion is that after 127 years it is increasingly less likely that we will find the answers. If you are more successful than I feel anyone would be, congratulations. I really hope, even if you are not able to find that last piece of info you need you will relent and tell us what your thoughts were.

As for "If" history (as opposed to "Iffy" history, a term invented by FDR to dismiss the fictionalization of events by changing results: i.e. the Titanic does not sink, or Booth does not kill Lincoln, or Hannibal does march on Rome following his smashing victory at Cannae) - I am a history and political science major (for whatever good they have done me) and I have been thinking of some person in history whose personality has been probed, labelled, and generally accepted by a majority in that final label. Not everyone might agree to the label. Most people think Abraham Lincoln was our greatest American, not just our greatest President, but there are real critics to this day who question this - civil libertarians about his stand on habeas corpus (he made old Chief Justice Roger Taney look better for fighting him on this matter, after Taney's blunder in the Dred Scot Decision), African-Americans who feel Lincoln had to be pushed into full acceptance of their demands for freedom and equality by the likes of Frederick Douglas (there is some truth to this, but I think Lincoln figured out the reality for himself), and white supremacists who blame him for his championing the African-Americans and total war (a la Grant and Sherman and Sheridan) on the South. It appears that the anti-Lincolns are split among themselves and also a minority.

But recently I have been watching something along the lines of what you have been hinting at in modern day America. Although hardly in the Gandhi, FDR, Lincoln, Hitler level of historical importance, the recent decided fall in popularity and public support of the African-American comedian and actor and producer Bill Cosby is on line of what I think you are getting at. In the 1990s, and as late as 2002 or so Cosby name and reputation were high. He was not only one of the first African-Americans to break stereotypes regarding televisions shows (I Spy, The Cosby Show), but he was outspoken in attacking the Hollywood and cultural stereotypes - doing a landmark television documentary in the late 1960s showing how false and bad these stereotypes were regarding Blacks. It probably helped make television and movie studios more careful on how to handle these matters (and not only for African-Americans, but for Woman, Latinos, Asians as well). Sometimes it took longer, and sometimes the effects remained uneven, but the impetus and movement for reforming was there - and Cosby was in the vanguard.

After 2002 two things happened. He had vast amounts of public sympathy because his only son was murdered by thugs in Los Angeles in the 1990s. But in the early part of the 2000s he was forced to confront the arguments of a young woman that she was his illegitimate daughter. This case he won (the girl went to prison for extortion I believe) but it tarnished his image a bit. He was also crusading now about ending certain stereotyping of women and policemen in the African-American sub-culture in it's language and in it's new "Rap" Music Lyrics. In particular the use of the notorious "N" word by young African-American males. This actually brought down some criticism of Cosby in the African-American community, where it was felt he was harming the very people whom the earlier Cosby had been helping.

Then came the last year and some thirty women claiming he sexually molested or attacked them since the 1970s. Now (withholding one's own opinions on these matters) Cosby's guilt or innocence on these charges will eventually be proved in law courts. However, they are reminding us of that earlier matter of the young woman who claimed she was his illegitimate daughter. Maybe there was some truth after all to her statements. Also the damage is crippling and already begun. Courses in various college that Cosby (who has a degree in education) founded have been renamed to drop his name from them. Doctorates have been taken back from him. One school has decided to reject a previously accepted scholarship program he founded because he founded it and it's named for him. Let's face it, whatever happens in those law courts, Bill Cosby's reputation will forever be smeared and reduced from what it was.

I think that is the kind of effect you are talking about - only brought to some more historically important figure, rather than one who was culturally significant.

Am I correct?

Jeff

Hi Jeff

Well, thanks for not getting angry at me then!

Really interesting to read about Cosby and it makes me realize the case of Cosby is a terrible but rather different type of case with other implications.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Now that's helpful

OK then. The past has left us sources. We have written and other sources. What we then write about the sources is history. And the history of history is historiography.

The past = X (a source)
History = "We found X, a source. It must mean something. We think it means X."
Historiography = "There is history about X where they say they think X means X".

The past gives us primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources is the X in its original. Secondary sources can be writings about X.

THE PAST can (naturally) never change. It is over. Done. - Bye bye.
HISTORY of the past can change. - Well, hello there new history!

Regards Pierre

[Dane_F]

You seem very smart Pierre, but your posts like this come off very much like you are trying to troll people. The simple truth is: if you never provide a carrot, you cannot expect a rabbit to chase.

You might have wonderful insights but I fear whatever your goal is might not be achieved because most will struggle to take them serious. I don't think people feel anger towards you, I think they feel you're a joke.

Certainly you can appreciate the fact that *hypothetically* If someone were trying to troll this forum, they would go about it in an identical manner in which you are doing it. Maybe a slight change in your tactic will be met with better results.

I fear my post comes off ruder than I intend it to be, I'm sorry for that. I'm mainly just an observer with little investment to get worked up about.

[Pierre]

You seem very smart Pierre, but your posts like this come off very much like you are trying to troll people. The simple truth is: if you never provide a carrot, you cannot expect a rabbit to chase.

You might have wonderful insights but I fear whatever your goal is might not be achieved because most will struggle to take them serious. I don't think people feel anger towards you, I think they feel you're a joke.

Certainly you can appreciate the fact that *hypothetically* If someone were trying to troll this forum, they would go about it in an identical manner in which you are doing it. Maybe a slight change in your tactic will be met with better results.

I fear my post comes off ruder than I intend it to be, I'm sorry for that. I'm mainly just an observer with little investment to get worked up about.

Hi Dane,

I donīt think youīre being rude at all and I appreciate your honesty. Well, trying to troll forums is not something I have the time for. But I can understand if people think so.

Regards Pierre

[Brenda]

.

The good news for all of us, Pierre, is that the 17th will mark one month since you came to the boards. This means one month down, 11 more to go until the "Big Reveal".....

Tick tock.....

[Dane_F]

Hi Dane,

I donīt think youīre being rude at all and I appreciate your honesty. Well, trying to troll forums is not something I have the time for. But I can understand if people think so.

Regards Pierre

Honestly, I hope at the end of this you publish this amazing article or book that is completely revolutionary and blows this case wide open. That would be so enjoyable to watch.

I wish you the best whatever your agenda is.

- Dane

[Pcdunn]

History is written by the winners?

OK then. The past has left us sources. We have written and other sources. What we then write about the sources is history. And the history of history is historiography.

The past = X (a source)
History = "We found X, a source. It must mean something. We think it means X."
Historiography = "There is history about X where they say they think X means X".

The past gives us primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources is the X in its original. Secondary sources can be writings about X.

THE PAST can (naturally) never change. It is over. Done. - Bye bye.
HISTORY of the past can change. - Well, hello there new history!

Regards Pierre

Hello, Pierre.

I do see what you are saying, and it makes sense to me. History, however, is rather a fluid thing. It can be forgotten. It can be rewritten. It can be misinterpreted, and interpreted with a bias. The tablets on which it is written can be smashed, or defaced. Paper and books can be erased, and burned.

Librarians in the Soviet Union were instructed to cut out offending passages and pictures in reference books and replace them with State-approved information.
This was how history was rewritten and passed to future generations.

I hope your new source is genuine and can be trusted.
Good luck...

[Damaso Marte]

IF my data sources will be sufficient to prove who he was (I hope they wonīt), history will most certainly be rewritten.

As the Spartans said to Philip of Macedon,

If.